Dataset Information

Assessing the Methods, Tools, and Statistical Approaches in Google Trends Research: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the era of information overload, are big data analytics the answer to access and better manage available knowledge? Over the last decade, the use of Web-based data in public health issues, that is, infodemiology, has been proven useful in assessing various aspects of human behavior. Google Trends is the most popular tool to gather such information, and it has been used in several topics up to this point, with health and medicine being the most focused subject. Web-based behavior is monitored and analyzed in order to examine actual human behavior so as to predict, better assess, and even prevent health-related issues that constantly arise in everyday life.

Objective

This systematic review aimed at reporting and further presenting and analyzing the methods, tools, and statistical approaches for Google Trends (infodemiology) studies in health-related topics from 2006 to 2016 to provide an overview of the usefulness of said tool and be a point of reference for future research on the subject.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for selecting studies, we searched for the term "Google Trends" in the Scopus and PubMed databases from 2006 to 2016, applying specific criteria for types of publications and topics. A total of 109 published papers were extracted, excluding duplicates and those that did not fall inside the topics of health and medicine or the selected article types. We then further categorized the published papers according to their methodological approach, namely, visualization, seasonality, correlations, forecasting, and modeling.

Results

All the examined papers comprised, by definition, time series analysis, and all but two included data visualization. A total of 23.1% (24/104) studies used Google Trends data for examining seasonality, while 39.4% (41/104) and 32.7% (34/104) of the studies used correlations and modeling, respectively. Only 8.7% (9/104) of the studies used Google Trends data for predictions and forecasting in health-related topics; therefore, it is evident that a gap exists in forecasting using Google Trends data.

Conclusions

The monitoring of online queries can provide insight into human behavior, as this field is significantly and continuously growing and will be proven more than valuable in the future for assessing behavioral changes and providing ground for research using data that could not have been accessed otherwise.

SUBMITTER: Mavragani A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6246971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGoogle Trends is a novel, freely accessible tool that allows users to interact with Internet search data, which may provide deep insights into population behavior and health-related phenomena. However, there is limited knowledge about its potential uses and limitations. We therefore systematically reviewed health care literature using Google Trends to classify articles by topic and study aim; evaluate the methodology and validation of the tool; and address limitations for its use in research.Methods and findingsPRISMA guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers systematically identified studies utilizing Google Trends for health care research from MEDLINE and PubMed. Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. Google Trends publications increased seven-fold from 2009 to 2013. Studies were classified into four topic domains: infectious disease (27% of articles), mental health and substance use (24%), other non-communicable diseases (16%), and general population behavior (33%). By use, 27% of articles utilized Google Trends for casual inference, 39% for description, and 34% for surveillance. Among surveillance studies, 92% were validated against a reference standard data source, and 80% of studies using correlation had a correlation statistic ≥0.70. Overall, 67% of articles provided a rationale for their search input. However, only 7% of articles were reproducible based on complete documentation of search strategy. We present a checklist to facilitate appropriate methodological documentation for future studies. A limitation of the study is the challenge of classifying heterogeneous studies utilizing a novel data source.ConclusionGoogle Trends is being used to study health phenomena in a variety of topic domains in myriad ways. However, poor documentation of methods precludes the reproducibility of the findings. Such documentation would enable other researchers to determine the consistency of results provided by Google Trends for a well-specified query over time. Furthermore, greater transparency can improve its reliability as a research tool.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.ResultsFrom 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.ConclusionThis systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is a primary source of health information for patients, supplementing physician care. Google Trends (GT), a popular tool, allows the exploration of public interest in health-related phenomena. Despite the growing volume of GT studies, none have focused explicitly on oncology, creating a need for a systematic review to bridge this gap.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically characterize studies related to oncology using GT to describe its utilities and biases.MethodsWe included all studies that used GT to analyze Google searches related to malignancies. We excluded studies written in languages other than English. The search was performed using the PubMed engine on August 1, 2022. We used the following search input: "Google trends" AND ("oncology" OR "cancer" or "malignancy" OR "tumor" OR "lymphoma" OR "multiple myeloma" OR "leukemia"). We analyzed sources of bias that included using search terms instead of topics, lack of confrontation of GT statistics with real-world data, and absence of sensitivity analysis. We performed descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 85 articles were included. The first study using GT for oncology research was published in 2013, and since then, the number of publications has increased annually. The studies were categorized as follows: 22% (19/85) were related to prophylaxis, 20% (17/85) pertained to awareness events, 11% (9/85) were celebrity-related, 13% (11/85) were related to COVID-19, and 47% (40/85) fell into other categories. The most frequently analyzed cancers were breast (n=28), prostate (n=26), lung (n=18), and colorectal cancers (n=18). We discovered that of the 85 studies, 17 (20%) acknowledged using GT topics instead of search terms, 79 (93%) disclosed all search input details necessary for replicating their results, and 34 (40%) compared GT statistics with real-world data. The most prevalent methods for analyzing the GT data were correlation analysis (55/85, 65%) and peak analysis (43/85, 51%). The authors of only 11% (9/85) of the studies performed a sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe number of studies related to oncology using GT data has increased annually. The studies included in this systematic review demonstrate a variety of concerning topics, search strategies, and statistical methodologies. The most frequently analyzed cancers were breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin, and cervical cancers, potentially reflecting their prevalence in the population or public interest. Although most researchers provided reproducible search inputs, only one-fifth used GT topics instead of search terms, and many studies lacked a sensitivity analysis. Scientists using GT for medical research should ensure the quality of studies by providing a transparent search strategy to reproduce results, preferring to use topics over search terms, and performing robust statistical calculations coupled with sensitivity analysis.

Project description:The objectives of this study is to identify methods for objectively assessing masticatory performance (MP) and to evaluate their measurement properties. A secondary objective was to identify any reported adverse events associated with the methods to assess MP. Bibliographic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, and Cinahl databases. Eligible papers that satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised independently by two investigators. Four other investigators independently appraised any measurement properties of the assessment method according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. The qualities of the measurement properties were evaluated using predefined criteria. The level of evidence was rated by using data synthesis for each MP assessment method, where the rating was a product of methodological quality and measurement properties quality. All studies were quality assessed separately, initially, and subsequently for each method. Studies that described the use of identical assessment method received an individual score, and the pooled sum score resulted in an overall evidence synthesis. The level of evidence was synthesized across studies with an overall conclusion, that is, unknown, conflicting, limited, moderate, or strong evidence. Forty-six out of 9,908 articles were appraised, and the assessment methods were categorized as comminution (n = 21), mixing ability (n = 23), or other methods (n = 2). Different measurement properties were identified, in decreasing order construct validity (n = 30), reliability (n = 22), measurement error (n = 9), criterion validity (n = 6), and responsiveness (n = 4). No adverse events associated with any assessment methods were reported. In a clinical setting or as a diagnostic method, there are no gold standard methods for assessing MP with a strong level of evidence for all measurement properties. All available assessment methods with variable level of evidence require lab-intensive equipment, such as sieves or digital image software. Clinical trials with sufficient sample size, to infer trueness and precision, are needed for evaluating diagnostic values of available methods for assessing masticatory performance.

Project description:BackgroundThe last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics.ResultsWe identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%).ConclusionsWe inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Project description:The lines of research conducted within a country often reflect its focus on current and future economic needs. Analyzing "search" trends on the internet can provide important insight into predicting the direction of a country in regards to agriculture, health, economy, and other areas. 'Google Trends' collects data on search terms from different countries, and this information can be used to better understand sentiments in different countries and regions. Agricultural output is responsible for feeding the world and there is a continuous quest to find ways to make agriculture more productive, safe, and reliable. The application of phytohormones has been used in agriculture world-wide for many years to improve crop production and continues to be an active area of research for the application in plants. Therefore, in the current study, we searched 'Google Trends' using the phytohormone search terms, abscisic acid, auxins, brassinosteroids, cytokinin, ethylene, gibberellins, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, and strigolactones. The results indicated that the African country Zambia had the greatest number of queries on auxin research, and Kenya had the most queries in cytokinin and gibberellin research world-wide. For other phytohormones, India had the greatest number of queries for abscisic acid and South Korea had the greatest number of ethylene and jasmonic acid search world-wide. Queries on salicylic acid have been continuously increasing while the least number of queries were related to strigolactones. Only India and United States of America had significant numbers of queries on all nine phytohormones while queries on one or more phytohormones were absent in other countries. India is one of the top five crop-producing countries in the world for apples, millet, orange, potato, pulses, rice, sugarcane, tea, and wheat. Similarly, the United States of America is one of the top five crop-producing countries of the world for apples, grapes, maze, orange, potato, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat. These might be the most possible factors for the search queries found for all the nine phytohormones in India and the United States of America.