Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28756828›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2017

Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings.

Gianfranco Cervellin, Ivan Comelli, Giuseppe Lippi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

130 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Public interest in drug-related problems reflected in information search trends: an infodemiological study.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Interest in Betting, Smoking, Alcohol, and Drugs in Malawi: Changing Trends between 2012-2022.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2024
    Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gianfranco CervellinEmergency Department, Academic Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy. Electronic address: gianfranco.cervellin@gmail.com.
Ivan ComelliEmergency Department, Academic Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Giuseppe LippiSection of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Internet-derived information has been recently recognized as a valuable tool for epidemiological investigation. Google Trends, a Google Inc. portal, generates data on geographical and temporal patterns according to specified keywords. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of Google Trends in different clinical settings, for both common diseases with lower media coverage, and for less common diseases attracting major media coverage. We carried out a search in Google Trends using the keywords "renal colic", "epistaxis", and "mushroom poisoning", selected on the basis of available and reliable epidemiological data. Besides this search, we carried out a second search for three clinical conditions (i.e., "meningitis", "Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia", and "Ebola fever"), which recently received major focus by the Italian media. In our analysis, no correlation was found between data captured from Google Trends and epidemiology of renal colics, epistaxis and mushroom poisoning. Only when searching for the term "mushroom" alone the Google Trends search generated a seasonal pattern which almost overlaps with the epidemiological profile, but this was probably mostly due to searches for harvesting and cooking rather than to for poisoning. The Google Trends data also failed to reflect the geographical and temporary patterns of disease for meningitis, Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia and Ebola fever. The results of our study confirm that Google Trends has modest reliability for defining the epidemiology of relatively common diseases with minor media coverage, or relatively rare diseases with higher audience. Overall, Google Trends seems to be more influenced by the media clamor than by true epidemiological burden.

Indexed as

Data CollectionEpidemiologic StudiesInternetResource AllocationData AccuracyEpidemiologic MethodsHumansMedical Informatics ComputingReproducibility of ResultsDigital epidemiologyEpistaxisGoogle TrendsMushroom poisoningRenal colic

Identifiers

PMID28756828
PMCPMC7320449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.