ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Public interest in retinal detachment in the United States: a Google Trends analysis.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD) is a vision-threatening condition requiring timely diagnosis and treatment, yet population-level public interest and information-seeking behavior is difficult to assess using traditional utilization data alone. This study evaluated temporal and geographic patterns of public interest in retinal detachment in the United States and contextualized this interest relative to retina specialist availability.
methodsIn this retrospective observational study, we queried Google Trends for RD-related search terms in the United States from 2008 to 2025. Google Trends reports relative search volume (RSV) on a normalized scale from 0 to 100. We extracted annual and state-level values using a composite of diagnostic and surgical RD terms. We obtained state-level counts of vitreoretinal surgeons from the American Society of Retina Specialists database and calculated retina surgeon density per 100,000 population using 2025 U.S. Census estimates. We also calculated the Search-to-Surgeon Index as an exploratory ratio of state-level relative search volume to retina surgeon density. We evaluated associations between RSV, Search-to-Surgeon Index, population age structure, and time using the using the Mann-Kendall trend test with Sen's slope estimator and the Spearman correlation test.
resultsFrom 2008 to 2025, retinal detachment-related relative search volume increased by 178%, with a significant temporal increasing trend (τ = 0.745, P < 0.001). Relative search volume declined sharply in April 2020. In 2025, state-level relative search volume ranged from 61 to 100 (median, 84). States with a higher proportion of residents aged 50 years and older demonstrated higher relative search volume (ρ = 0.56, P < 0.001). Retina surgeon density varied more than tenfold across states, ranging from 0.17 to 2.09 per 100,000 residents. Search-to-Surgeon index values ranged from 40 to 406 (median, 155), with the highest values observed in states with limited retina surgeon availability. Population age distribution was not significantly associated with Search-to-Surgeon index (ρ = -0.06, P > 0.10).
conclusionsPublic interest in retinal detachment has increased substantially over time and varies widely across U.S. states. Integrating Google Trends data with retina surgeon distribution highlights geographic mismatches between public interest and specialist availability. This exploratory framework may help identify regions with disproportionate public concern relative to local workforce capacity.
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.