Dataset Information

The Popularity of the Biologically-Based Therapies During Coronavirus Pandemic Among the Google Users in the USA, UK, Germany, Italy and France.

ABSTRACT:

Object

The aim of this retrospective infodemiological study was to evaluate people's interests in biologically-based (B-B) complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies such as herbs, foods, and supplements during the coronavirus pandemic via analysis of Google search engine statistics.

Design & settings

The category, period, and regions selected in the Google Trends were "health," "15 January-15 May 2020," in the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Italy, and France, respectively. The most commonly searched herbs, foods and supplements (n = 32) during the pandemic were determined from a pool of keywords (n = 1286) based on the terms' relative search volumes (RSVs) within the last five years. Correlation analyses were conducted to investigate associations between coronavirus-related parameters with each keyword's RSV for each country. Selected keywords (n = 25) were analyzed using the gtrendsR package in the R programming language; the ggplot2 package was used to visualize the data, the Prophet package was used to estimate the time series, and the dplyr package was used to create the data frame.

Results

Significantly strong positive correlations were identified between daily RSVs of the terms "black seed," "vitamin C," "zinc," and "quercetin," and search queries for "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" in the USA (Spearman's correlation coefficient > 0.8, p < 0.05), and between the RSVs of the terms "vitamin C" and "zinc," and daily search queries for "coronavirus" and/or "COVID-19" in the UK (Spearman's correlation coefficient > 0.8, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Google Trends can be a beneficial tool for following public interest in identifying outbreak-related misinformation, and scientific studies and statements from authorities and the media play a potential role in driving internet searches.

SUBMITTER: Gunalan E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7883724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This data article contains information on the distribution of household incomes in the five most populous European countries as surveyed in 2012, with data released in 2014 and published here aggregated and so further anonymized in 2015. The underlying source data is the already anonymized EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) Microdata. The data include the annual household income required in each country to fall within the best-off 1% in that country, median and mean incomes, average (mean) incomes of the best off 1%, 0.1% and estimates for the 0.01%, 0.001% and so on for the UK, and of the 90% and worse-off 10%, the best-off 10% and best-off 1% of households for all countries. Average income from the state is also calculated by these income categories and the number of people working in finance and receiving over €1,000,000 a year in income is reported from other sources (the European Banking Authority). Finally income distribution data is provided from the USA and the rest of Europe in order to allow comparisons to be made. The data revealed the gross household (simple unweighted) median incomes in 2012 to have been (in order from best-off country by median to worse-off): France €39,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €36,300, Italy €33,400 and Spain €27,000. However the medians, once households are weighted to reflect the nation populations do differ although they are in the same order: France €36,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €31,300, Italy €31,000 and Spain €23,700. Thus weighting to increase representativeness of the medians reduces each by €3000, €0, €5000, €3300 and €3300 respectively. In short, the middle (weighted median) French household is €4700 a year better off than the middle UK family, and that is before housing costs are considered. This Data in Brief article accompanies Dorling, D. (2015) Income Inequality in the UK: Comparisons with five large Western European countries and the USA [1].

Project description:PurposeTo describe the characteristics of new users of cilostazol in Europe with the aim to support the evaluation of its benefit/risk as used in regular clinical practice before the implementation of labeling changes recommended by the European Medicines Agency.MethodsNew users of cilostazol were identified in populations enrolled in five European health automated databases in the UK (The Health Improvement Network [THIN]), Spain (EpiChron cohort and Information System for the Improvement of Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]), Sweden (National Registers), and Germany (German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database [GePaRD]) between 2002 and 2012. New users were characterized according to the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities, concurrent use of interacting medications, new contraindications, duration of use, and potential off-label prescribing.ResultsWe identified 22 593 new users of cilostazol. The median age was between 68.0 (THIN) and 73.7 (Sweden) years. More than 78% of users had concomitant cardiovascular disease, and between 78.8% (GePaRD) and 91.6% (THIN) were treated with interacting medications. Prevalence of new cardiovascular contraindications ranged from 1.5% (THIN) to 11.6% (GePaRD), and concurrent use of two or more antiplatelet drugs ranged from 6.3% (SIDIAP) to 13.5% (EpiChron cohort). Between 39.4% (Sweden) and 52.9% (THIN) of users discontinued cilostazol in the first 3 months. Between 41.0% (SIDIAP) and 93.4% (THIN) were considered to have received cilostazol according to the European Medicines Agency labeling.ConclusionsIn this collaborative European study, most cilostazol users were elderly patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and other comorbidity and concurrent use of interacting drugs, indicating that this is a vulnerable population at high risk of complications, especially cardiovascular events. © 2017 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.