ArticleCureus2019
Mining Google Trends Data for Health Information: The Case of the Irish "CervicalCheck" Screening Programme Revelations.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Characteristics, Uses, and Biases of Studies Related to Malignancies Using Google Trends: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Lack of consensus in calculation of interval cancer rates for cervical cancer screening.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Google Trends Analysis Reflecting Internet Users' Interest in Selected Terms of Sexual and Reproductive Health in Ukraine.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Global online interest in cervical cancer care in the time of COVID-19: An infodemiology study.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In April 2018, the Irish cervical smear screening programme, "CervicalCheck", came under intense scrutiny as the accuracy of hundreds of "negative" results were brought in question. Aim The goal of this brief report was to assess the impact of this real-life event on public information-seeking behaviour, using Google search anomalies as a proxy. Irish relative search volume data for several terms relating to cervical testing/cancer and human papillomavirus were extracted for a five-year period from February 2014 to January 2019 and analysed for the presence of anomalous spikes and shifts in the mean baseline. Results An unprecedented positive spike in searches relating to cervical testing/cancer was observed immediately after the CervicalCheck revelations, which remained anomalous for the month to follow (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.