Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30787088›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Google search histories of patients presenting to an emergency department: an observational study.

Jeremy M Asch, David A Asch, Elissa V Klinger, Justine Marks, Norah Sadek, Raina M Merchant

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. eHealth literacy in emergency care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Scrolls, screens and search bars: exploring family search behaviour and the quality of online information on molar incisor hypomineralisation.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Electronic Health Literacy Among Baby Boomers: A Typology.Health literacy research and practice · 2024
    Article
  11. Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023
    Article
  12. Orthopaedic Surgical Demand Index: A Measure of Need in the United States.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Covidseeker: A Geospatial Temporal Surveillance Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Overuse of Health Care in the Emergency Services in Chile.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  18. Predicting eating disorders from Internet activity.The International journal of eating disorders · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jeremy M AschDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
David A AschCenter for Digital Health, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Elissa V KlingerCenter for Digital Health, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Justine MarksDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Norah SadekDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Raina M MerchantDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test patients' willingness to share and link their prior Google search histories with data from their electronic medical record (EMR), and to explore associations between search histories and clinical conditions.

designCross-sectional study of emergency department (ED) patients from 2016 to 2017.

settingAcademic medical centre ED.

participantsA total of 703 patients were approached; 334 of a volunteer sample of 411 (81%) reported having a Google account; 165 of those (49%) consented to share their Google search histories and EMR data; 119 (72%) were able to do so. 16 (13%) of those 119 patients had no data and were not included in the final count. Patients under the age of 18 or with a triage level of 1 were considered ineligible and were not approached.

main outcome measuresHealth relatedness of searches in the remote past and within 7 days of the ED visit, and associations between patients' clinical and demographic characteristics and their internet search volume and search content.

resultsThe 103 participants yielded 591 421 unique search queries; 37 469 (6%) were health related. In the 7 days prior to an ED visit, the percentage of health-related searches was 15%. During that time, 56% of patients searched for symptoms, 53% for information about a hospital and 23% about the treatment or management of a disease. 53% of participants who used Google in the week leading up to their ED visit searched for content directly related to their chief complaint.

conclusionsPatients were willing to allow researchers simultaneous access to their Google search histories and their EMR data. The change in volume and content of search activity prior to an ED visit suggests opportunities to anticipate and improve health care utilisation in advance of ED visits.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalInternetSearch EngineAcademic Medical CentersAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adulthealth informaticsinformation technologyworld wide web technology

Identifiers

PMID30787088
PMCPMC6398768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.