Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings
Abstract Internet-derived information has been recently recognized as a valuable tool for epidemiological investigation. Google Trends, a Google Inc. portal, generates data on geographical and temporal patterns according to specified keywords. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2017-06-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1016/jjegh.2017.06.001 |
| _version_ | 1797363638721314816 |
|---|---|
| author | Gianfranco Cervellin Ivan Comelli Giuseppe Lippi |
| author_facet | Gianfranco Cervellin Ivan Comelli Giuseppe Lippi |
| author_sort | Gianfranco Cervellin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Internet-derived information has been recently recognized as a valuable tool for epidemiological investigation. Google Trends, a Google Inc. portal, generates data on geographical and temporal patterns according to specified keywords. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of Google Trends in different clinical settings, for both common diseases with lower media coverage, and for less common diseases attracting major media coverage. We carried out a search in Google Trends using the keywords “renal colic”, “epistaxis”, and “mushroom poisoning”, selected on the basis of available and reliable epidemiological data. Besides this search, we carried out a second search for three clinical conditions (i.e., “meningitis”, “Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia”, and “Ebola fever”), which recently received major focus by the Italian media. In our analysis, no correlation was found between data captured from Google Trends and epidemiology of renal colics, epistaxis and mushroom poisoning. Only when searching for the term “mushroom” alone the Google Trends search generated a seasonal pattern which almost overlaps with the epidemiological profile, but this was probably mostly due to searches for harvesting and cooking rather than to for poisoning. The Google Trends data also failed to reflect the geographical and temporary patterns of disease for meningitis, Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia and Ebola fever. The results of our study confirm that Google Trends has modest reliability for defining the epidemiology of relatively common diseases with minor media coverage, or relatively rare diseases with higher audience. Overall, Google Trends seems to be more influenced by the media clamor than by true epidemiological burden. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:23:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0d8d3039ab3b4ac5b8c347c623bae256 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2210-6006 2210-6014 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:23:57Z |
| publishDate | 2017-06-01 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-0d8d3039ab3b4ac5b8c347c623bae2562024-01-07T12:08:35ZengSpringerJournal of Epidemiology and Global Health2210-60062210-60142017-06-017318518910.1016/jjegh.2017.06.001Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settingsGianfranco Cervellin0Ivan Comelli1Giuseppe Lippi2Emergency Department, Academic Hospital of ParmaEmergency Department, Academic Hospital of ParmaSection of Clinical Biochemistry, University of VeronaAbstract Internet-derived information has been recently recognized as a valuable tool for epidemiological investigation. Google Trends, a Google Inc. portal, generates data on geographical and temporal patterns according to specified keywords. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of Google Trends in different clinical settings, for both common diseases with lower media coverage, and for less common diseases attracting major media coverage. We carried out a search in Google Trends using the keywords “renal colic”, “epistaxis”, and “mushroom poisoning”, selected on the basis of available and reliable epidemiological data. Besides this search, we carried out a second search for three clinical conditions (i.e., “meningitis”, “Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia”, and “Ebola fever”), which recently received major focus by the Italian media. In our analysis, no correlation was found between data captured from Google Trends and epidemiology of renal colics, epistaxis and mushroom poisoning. Only when searching for the term “mushroom” alone the Google Trends search generated a seasonal pattern which almost overlaps with the epidemiological profile, but this was probably mostly due to searches for harvesting and cooking rather than to for poisoning. The Google Trends data also failed to reflect the geographical and temporary patterns of disease for meningitis, Legionella Pneumophila pneumonia and Ebola fever. The results of our study confirm that Google Trends has modest reliability for defining the epidemiology of relatively common diseases with minor media coverage, or relatively rare diseases with higher audience. Overall, Google Trends seems to be more influenced by the media clamor than by true epidemiological burden.https://doi.org/10.1016/jjegh.2017.06.001Digital epidemiologyGoogle TrendsRenal colicEpistaxisMushroom poisoning |
| spellingShingle | Gianfranco Cervellin Ivan Comelli Giuseppe Lippi Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health Digital epidemiology Google Trends Renal colic Epistaxis Mushroom poisoning |
| title | Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings |
| title_full | Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings |
| title_fullStr | Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings |
| title_short | Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings |
| title_sort | is google trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology insights from different clinical settings |
| topic | Digital epidemiology Google Trends Renal colic Epistaxis Mushroom poisoning |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1016/jjegh.2017.06.001 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gianfrancocervellin isgoogletrendsareliabletoolfordigitalepidemiologyinsightsfromdifferentclinicalsettings AT ivancomelli isgoogletrendsareliabletoolfordigitalepidemiologyinsightsfromdifferentclinicalsettings AT giuseppelippi isgoogletrendsareliabletoolfordigitalepidemiologyinsightsfromdifferentclinicalsettings |