The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review.
The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0109583
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Murugiah K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nuti SV;Wayda B;Ranasinghe I;Wang S;Dreyer RP;Chen SI;Murugiah K
Google Trends是一个新的、免费访问的工具，允许用户与互联网搜索数据进行交互，这些数据可能会提供对人口行为和健康相关现象的深刻见解。然而，人们对其潜在用途和局限性的了解有限。因此，我们使用谷歌趋势系统地回顾了医疗保健文献，根据主题和研究目的对文章进行分类；评估该工具的方法和有效性；并解决其在研究中使用的局限性。遵循PRISMA指南。两位独立审查者系统地确定了利用谷歌趋势进行医疗研究的研究，这些研究来自MEDLINE和PubMed。有70项研究符合我们的纳入标准。从2009年到2013年，谷歌趋势的出版物增加了七倍。研究被分为四个主题领域：传染病(占文章的27%)、精神健康和药物使用(24%)、其他非传染性疾病(16%)和一般人群行为(33%)。根据使用情况，27%的文章使用Google Trends进行随意推断，39%用于描述，34%用于监视。在监测研究中，92%的研究是根据参考标准数据源进行验证的，而使用相关性的研究中，有80%的研究具有相关性统计≥0.70。总体而言，67%的文章为他们的搜索输入提供了理由。然而，根据搜索策略的完整文档，只有7%的文章是可重现的。我们提供了一份核对表，以便为未来的研究提供适当的方法学文件。这项研究的局限性是利用新的数据源对不同类型的研究进行分类的挑战。谷歌趋势正被用来以各种方式研究各种主题领域的健康现象。然而，糟糕的方法记录排除了研究结果的重复性。这样的文档将使其他研究人员能够确定Google Trends为一个明确的查询提供的结果随时间的一致性。此外，更大的透明度可以提高其作为研究工具的可靠性。
Google 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. PRISMA 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. Google 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Carr LJ;Dunsiger SI
通讯作者：
Dunsiger SI
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Brigo, Francesco;Igwe, Stanley C.;Trinka, Eugen
通讯作者：
Trinka, Eugen
DOI：
10.1056/nejmp0900702
发表时间：
2009-05-21
期刊：
The New England journal of medicine
影响因子：
--
作者：
Brownstein JS;Freifeld CC;Madoff LC
通讯作者：
Madoff LC
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Ayers, John W.;Althouse, Benjamin M.;Ford, Daniel E.
通讯作者：
Ford, Daniel E.
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Ayers JW;Althouse BM;Allem JP;Ford DE;Ribisl KM;Cohen JE
通讯作者：
Cohen JE