medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2019, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2019; 30 (4)

Information search and its association to scientific production: the example of syphilis and gonorrhea

Sanz-Lorente M, Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Berghe C

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 1-11
PDF size: 424.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to analyze the association between information search about syphilis and gonorrhea in Google, and the scientific production about these two sexually transmitted infections. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. Data were obtained by direct online consultation of Google Trends and MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the search terms "syphilis" and "gonorrhea". The variables analyzed were relative search volume (RSV), mean monthly RSV (RSVm), references (REF) and mean monthly REF (REFm). The RSVm for the term syphilis showed slight increasing progression and exponential adjustment (R2= 0.05; p= 0.42); while for gonorrhea the RSVm evolution was increasing with linear adjustment (R2= 0.67; p< 0.01). The REFm for the scientific production about syphilis displayed increasing linear adjustment (R2= 0.42; p= 0.01), whereas the REFm for gonorrhea showed increasing exponential adjustment (R2= 0.47; p= 0.01). The association of the RSVm for the term syphilis with its REFm was scant (R= 0.11; p= 0.69), while the term gonorrhea exhibited a significant positive correlation (R= 0.67; p= 0.01). The results obtained were not sufficient to reach a definitive conclusion in response to the aim of the study. From this moment onwards, with greater follow-up, further results may be obtained which will either confirm or disprove the association between information search and scientific production about health topics.


REFERENCES

  1. Fundación Conocimiento y Desarrollo (Fundación CYD). Informe CYD; 2017 [monografía en Internet]. Barcelona, España: Fundación CYD; 2018 [acceso: 07/04/2019]. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2CCZQI8

  2. Arencibia R, de Moya Anegón F. La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación teórica desde la cienciometría. ACIMED. 2008 [acceso: 07/04/2019];17(4):[aprox 79 pantallas]. Disponible en: http://bit.ly/2XA9AvU

  3. Sanz-Valero J, López-Marcos P, Perdiguero-Gil E. Adequacy of the information on active pharmaceutical ingredients obtained in a Google search. Eur J Clin Pharm. 2015;17(1):8-14.

  4. Amazon Company. Alexa, Top Sites (The top 500 sites on the Web); 2019 [acceso: 07/04/2019]. Disponible en: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

  5. Pimienta D, Prado D. Medición de la presencia de la lengua española en la Internet: métodos y resultados. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 2016;39(3):e141.

  6. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the Internet. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(1):e11.

  7. Mavragani A, Ochoa G, Tsagarakis KP. Assessing the methods, tools, and statistical approaches in Google Trends research: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(11):e270.

  8. World Health Organization. Global incidence and prevalence of selected curable sexually transmitted infections - 2008 [monografía en Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2012 [acceso: 12/05/2019]. Disponible en: http://bit.ly/2W5V1mJ

  9. Sanz-Lorente M, Wanden-Berghe C. Tendencias temporales de los patrones de búsqueda de información sobre cuidado domiciliario “Home Care” u hospitalario “Hospital Care” a través de Google. Hosp Domic. 2018;2(3):93-9.

  10. Johnson AK, Mehta SD. A comparison of Internet search trends and sexually transmitted infection rates using Google trends. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(1):61-3.

  11. Orellano PW, Reynoso JI, Antman J, Argibay O. Using Google Trends to estimate the incidence of influenza-like illness in Argentina. Cad Saude Publ. 2015;31(4):691-700.

  12. Chiu APY, Lin Q, He D. News trends and web search query of HIV/AIDS in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0185004.

  13. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(11):2215-22.

  14. Merkle Inc. Digital Marketing Report Q4 2018 [monografía en Internet]. Columbia, EE.UU.: Merkel; 2019 [acceso: 23/04/2019]. Disponible en: http://bit.ly/2Vn2Io6

  15. Price DJS. Little science, big science. New York, EE.UU.: Columbia University Press; 1963.

  16. Chan EH, Sahai V, Conrad C, Brownstein JS. Using web search query data to monitor dengue epidemics: a new model for neglected tropical disease surveillance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(5):e1206.

  17. Culquichicón-Sánchez C, Ramos-Cedano E, Chumbes-Aguirre D, Araujo-Chumacero M, Díaz Vélez C, Rodríguez-Morales AJ. Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TICs) en la vigilancia, prevención y control del dengue. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2015;32(3):363-4.

  18. Ortiz-Martínez Y, Rios-González CM. Global impact of the World Hepatitis Day 2016: An evaluation using Google Trends. J Infect Public Health. 2017;10(5):690-1.

  19. Sanz-Lorente M, Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Berghe C. Tendencias temporales de los patrones de búsqueda de información sobre VIH/SIDA en España. Rev Esp Comun Salud. 2019. En prensa.

  20. Castiel LD, Sanz-Valero J. Entre fetichismo e sobrevivência: o artigo científico é uma mercadoria acadêmica? Cad Saude Publica. 2007;23(12):3041-50.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com