The Characteristics, Uses, and Biases of Studies Related to Malignancies Using Google Trends: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The 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. Objective We aimed to systematically characterize studies related to oncology using GT to describe its utilities and biases. Methods We 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. Results A 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. Conclusions The 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.