ArticleDigital health
Increasing utility of Google Trends in monitoring cardiovascular disease.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating Global Interest in Genicular Artery Embolization: A Google Trends Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Longitudinal analysis of usage and public awareness of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for CML.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Online searches for hepatocellular carcinoma drugs mirror prescription trends across specialties and changes in guideline recommendations.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Trends of Internet Search Volumes for Major Depressive Disorder Symptoms During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Online searches for SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists correlate with prescription rates in the United States: An infodemiological study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Patients are increasingly using internet search to find health-related information, including searches for cardiovascular diseases and risk factors. We sought to evaluate the change in the state by state correlation of cardiovascular disease and risk factors with Google Trends search volumes.
methodsData on cardiovascular disease hospitalizations and risk factor prevalence were obtained from the publically available Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website from 2006 to 2018. Google Trends data were obtained for matching conditions and time periods. Simple linear regression was performed to evaluate for an increase in correlation over time.
resultsHospitalizations for six separate cardiovascular disease conditions showed moderate to strong correlation with online search data in the last period studied (heart failure (0.58,
conclusionThe prevalence of and hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions in the United States strongly correlate with online search volumes in the United States when analyzed by state. This relationship has progressively strengthened or been strong and stable over recent years for these conditions. Google Trends represents an increasingly valuable tool for evaluating the burden of cardiovascular disease and risk factors in the United States.
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.