• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

BMC Med Res Methodol . Need of care in interpreting Google Trends-based COVID-19 infodemiological study results: potential risk of false-positivity

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Med Res Methodol


. 2021 Jul 18;21(1):147.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01338-2.
Need of care in interpreting Google Trends-based COVID-19 infodemiological study results: potential risk of false-positivity


Kenichiro Sato[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tatsuo Mano[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Atsushi Iwata[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Tatsushi Toda[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Google Trends (GT) is being used as an epidemiological tool to study coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by identifying keywords in search trends that are predictive for the COVID-19 epidemiological burden. However, many of the earlier GT-based studies include potential statistical fallacies by measuring the correlation between non-stationary time sequences without adjusting for multiple comparisons or the confounding of media coverage, leading to concerns about the increased risk of obtaining false-positive results. In this study, we aimed to apply statistically more favorable methods to validate the earlier GT-based COVID-19 study results.
Methods: We extracted the relative GT search volume for keywords associated with COVID-19 symptoms, and evaluated their Granger-causality to weekly COVID-19 positivity in eight English-speaking countries and Japan. In addition, the impact of media coverage on keywords with significant Granger-causality was further evaluated using Japanese regional data.
Results: Our Granger causality-based approach largely decreased (by up to approximately one-third) the number of keywords identified as having a significant temporal relationship with the COVID-19 trend when compared to those identified by Pearson or Spearman's rank correlation-based approach. "Sense of smell" and "loss of smell" were the most reliable GT keywords across all the evaluated countries; however, when adjusted with their media coverage, these keyword trends did not Granger-cause the COVID-19 positivity trends (in Japan).
Conclusions: Our results suggest that some of the search keywords reported as candidate predictive measures in earlier GT-based COVID-19 studies may potentially be unreliable; therefore, caution is necessary when interpreting published GT-based study results.

Keywords: COVID-19; Google Trends; Granger causality; Infodemiology; Vector autoregression model.
 
Back
Top Bottom