목적: 본 연구는 구글 트렌드를 이용하여 일반적인 인터넷 사용자들이 치과 임플란트에 대해 가지고 있는 관심도를 분석하고, 관심도의 수준을 국민건강보험공단의 빅 데이터와 비교하기 위함이다. 재료 및 방법: 구글 트렌드는 검색 키워드에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨을 제공하는데, 이것은 특정 기간 동안의 검색 빈도를 시각화하여 보여주는 평균 데이터이다. 임플란트를 검색어로 선정하여, 2015년에서 2019년까지의 일반적인 인터넷 사용자들의 관심도를 추세선과 6개월 이동평균선을 이용하여 분석하였다. 다음으로, 임플란트에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨을 국민건강보험의 적용을 받아 임플란트를 식립한 환자 수의 변화와 함께 비교하였다. 임플란트와 전통적인 의치에 대한 상대적 관심도를 비교하였으며, 임플란트와 관련된 주요 연관 검색어를 분석하였다. 결과: 임플란트에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨은 점진적으로 증가하였으며, 국민건강보험 혜택을 받은 환자 수와 유의한 양의 상관관계를 보였다 (P < .01). 임플란트에 대한 관심도는 모든 기간에 있어서 의치에 비해 높았다. 연관 검색어로는 임플란트 비용이 가장 빈번하게 관찰되었으며, 임플란트 과정에 대한 검색이 증가하였다. 결론: 본 제한된 연구의 결과를 근거로, 임플란트에 대한 대중의 관심은 점진적으로 증가하고 있으며, 관심의 세부 분야는 변하고 있다. 또한 웹 기반의 구글 트렌드 데이터를 전통적인 방식의 데이터와 비교한 결과, 유의한 상관관계를 확인할 수 있었다.
목적: 본 연구는 구글 트렌드를 이용하여 일반적인 인터넷 사용자들이 치과 임플란트에 대해 가지고 있는 관심도를 분석하고, 관심도의 수준을 국민건강보험공단의 빅 데이터와 비교하기 위함이다. 재료 및 방법: 구글 트렌드는 검색 키워드에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨을 제공하는데, 이것은 특정 기간 동안의 검색 빈도를 시각화하여 보여주는 평균 데이터이다. 임플란트를 검색어로 선정하여, 2015년에서 2019년까지의 일반적인 인터넷 사용자들의 관심도를 추세선과 6개월 이동평균선을 이용하여 분석하였다. 다음으로, 임플란트에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨을 국민건강보험의 적용을 받아 임플란트를 식립한 환자 수의 변화와 함께 비교하였다. 임플란트와 전통적인 의치에 대한 상대적 관심도를 비교하였으며, 임플란트와 관련된 주요 연관 검색어를 분석하였다. 결과: 임플란트에 대한 상대적 검색 볼륨은 점진적으로 증가하였으며, 국민건강보험 혜택을 받은 환자 수와 유의한 양의 상관관계를 보였다 (P < .01). 임플란트에 대한 관심도는 모든 기간에 있어서 의치에 비해 높았다. 연관 검색어로는 임플란트 비용이 가장 빈번하게 관찰되었으며, 임플란트 과정에 대한 검색이 증가하였다. 결론: 본 제한된 연구의 결과를 근거로, 임플란트에 대한 대중의 관심은 점진적으로 증가하고 있으며, 관심의 세부 분야는 변하고 있다. 또한 웹 기반의 구글 트렌드 데이터를 전통적인 방식의 데이터와 비교한 결과, 유의한 상관관계를 확인할 수 있었다.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of interest that common Internet users have in dental implant using a Google Trends, and to compare the level of interest with big data from National Health Insurance Service. Materials and methods: Google Trends provides a relative search ...
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of interest that common Internet users have in dental implant using a Google Trends, and to compare the level of interest with big data from National Health Insurance Service. Materials and methods: Google Trends provides a relative search volume for search keywords, which is the average data that visualizes the frequency of searches for those keywords over a specific period of time. Implant was selected as the search keyword to evaluate changes in time flows of general Internet users' interest from 2015 to 2019 with trend line and 6 month moving average. Relative search volume for implant was analyzed with the number of patients who received National Health Insurance coverage for implant. Interest in implant and conventional denture was compared and popular related search keywords were analyzed. Results: Relative search volume for implant has increased gradually and showed a significant positive correlation with the total number of patients (P<.01). Interest in implant was higher than denture for most of the time. Keywords related to implant cost were most frequently observed in all years and related search on implant procedure was increasing. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the public interest in dental implant was gradually increasing and specific areas of interest were changing. Web-based Google Trends data was also compared with traditional data and significant correlation was confirmed.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the level of interest that common Internet users have in dental implant using a Google Trends, and to compare the level of interest with big data from National Health Insurance Service. Materials and methods: Google Trends provides a relative search volume for search keywords, which is the average data that visualizes the frequency of searches for those keywords over a specific period of time. Implant was selected as the search keyword to evaluate changes in time flows of general Internet users' interest from 2015 to 2019 with trend line and 6 month moving average. Relative search volume for implant was analyzed with the number of patients who received National Health Insurance coverage for implant. Interest in implant and conventional denture was compared and popular related search keywords were analyzed. Results: Relative search volume for implant has increased gradually and showed a significant positive correlation with the total number of patients (P<.01). Interest in implant was higher than denture for most of the time. Keywords related to implant cost were most frequently observed in all years and related search on implant procedure was increasing. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the public interest in dental implant was gradually increasing and specific areas of interest were changing. Web-based Google Trends data was also compared with traditional data and significant correlation was confirmed.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the level of interest that common Internet users have in dental implant and report the related search keywords using a Google Trends.
제안 방법
Next, the number of patients who received the first stage of National Health Insurance coverage for implant was calculated on a monthly basis from January 2015 to July 2019 using the Healthcare Bigdata Hub system to compare the data values obtained from Google Trends with the actual number of claims for implant.
데이터처리
Pearson correlation analysis was also performed on the RSV for implant and denture, with no statistical significance (Table 3).
Pearson correlation analysis was performed on the RSV of the month and the total number of patients who received the National Health Insurance coverage for implant.
Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted for RSV over a month to evaluate the relationship between implant and denture searches.
성능/효과
As a result of the RSV analysis, interest in implant showed a gradual increase, which could be seen through the linear trend line and 6 month moving average.
후속연구
Further studies are needed to evaluate the validity of Google Trends for surveillance in prosthetic dentistry and how big data will be used as valuable research data.
참고문헌 (30)
Steigenga JT, al-Shammari KF, Nociti FH, Misch CE, Wang HL. Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success. Implant Dent 2003;12:306-17.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.
van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, Higuchi K, Laney W, Linden U, Astrand P. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:272-81.
Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger U, Balsiger C. Tissue integration of one-stage ITI implants: 3-year results of a longitudinal study with Hollow-Cylinder and Hollow-Screw implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:405-12.
Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.
Ryu JI, Jeon JE. Utilization rate of dental implant for elderly in National Health Insurance in Korea. J Korean Dent Assoc 2019;57:496-503.
Pjetursson BE, Karoussis I, Burgin W, Bragger U, Lang NP. Patients' satisfaction following implant therapy. A 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:185-93.
Feine JS, Awad MA, Lund JP. The impact of patient preference on the design and interpretation of clinical trials. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998;26:70-4.
Esfandiari S, Lund JP, Penrod JR, Savard A, Thomason JM, Feine JS. Implant overdentures for edentulous elders: study of patient preference. Gerodontology 2009;26:3-10.
Lee JY, Lee JH, Park YH, A design and implementation of the management system for number of keyword searching results using Google searching engine. J Korean Inst Inf Commun Eng 2016;20:880-6.
Nghiem le TP, Papworth SK, Lim FK, Carrasco LR. Analysis of the capacity of Google trends to measure interest in conservation topics and the role of online news. PLoS One 2016;11:e0152802.
Cervellin G, Comelli I, Lippi G. Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings. J Epidemiol Glob Health 2017;7:185-9.
Dugas AF, Hsieh YH, Levin SR, Pines JM, Mareiniss DP, Mohareb A, Gaydos CA, Perl TM, Rothman RE. Google Flu Trends: correlation with emergency department influenza rates and crowding metrics. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:463-9.
Nuti SV, Wayda B, Ranasinghe I, Wang S, Dreyer RP, Chen SI, Murugiah K. The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review. PLoS One 2014;9:e109583.
Lee K, Dam C, Huh J, Park KM, Kim SY, Park W. Distribution of medical status and medications in elderly patients treated with dental implant surgery covered by national healthcare insurance in Korea. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2017;17:113-9.
Motosko C, Zakhem G, Ho R, Saadeh P, Hazen A. Using Google to trend patient interest in botulinum toxin and hyaluronic acid fillers. J Drugs Dermatol 2018;17:1245-6.
Jena AB, Karaca-Mandic P, Weaver L, Seabury SA. Predicting new diagnoses of HIV infection using internet search engine data. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:1352-3.
Samaras L, Garcia-Barriocanal E, Sicilia MA. Syndromic surveillance models using Web data: the case of scarlet fever in the UK. Inform Health Soc Care 2012;37:106-24.
Mijiritsky E, Ormianer Z, Klinger A, Mardinger O. Use of dental implants to improve unfavorable removable partial denture design. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:744-6, 748, 750.
Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Choosing or refusing oral implants: a prospective study of edentulous volunteers for a clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:483-8.
Leles CR, Martins RR, Silva ET, Nunes MF. Discriminant analysis of patients' reasons for choosing or refusing treatments for partial edentulism. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:909-15.
Narby B, Kronstrom M, Soderfeldt B, Palmqvist S. Prosthodontics and the patient. Part 2: Need becoming demand, demand becoming utilization. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:183-9.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.