Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 5

Ten-year changes in worldwide online search interest in English-language terms related to conservative, orthobiologic, and surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis

Ahmet Acar(University of Health Sciences, Etlik City Hospital)0000-0001-8378-4346
Osman Yağız Atlı(University of Health Sciences, Etlik City Hospital)0000-0001-6657-6860
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Google Trends may help identify emerging patient interests; however, independently normalized RSV values should not be used to compare the absolute popularity of different treatments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study aimed to evaluate ten-year changes in worldwide Google search interest in 27 selected English-language terms related to conservative, orthobiologic/regenerative, and surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis and degenerative knee disorders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Monthly Google Trends relative search volume (RSV) data were obtained worldwide for 27 English-language treatment-related search terms between July 2016 and June 2026.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Google Trends may help identify emerging patient interests; however, independently normalized RSV values should not be used to compare the absolute popularity of different treatments.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Knee osteoarthritis · orthobiologic therapies · infodemiology

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate ten-year changes in worldwide Google search interest in 27 selected English-language terms related to conservative, orthobiologic/regenerative, and surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis and degenerative knee disorders. Methods: Monthly Google Trends relative search volume (RSV) data were obtained worldwide for 27 English-language treatment-related search terms between July 2016 and June 2026. The terms were classified as conservative/minimally invasive, orthobiologic/regenerative, or surgical treatments. Monthly RSV data were aggregated into 10 consecutive July-June annual means per term. Temporal trends were assessed using these 10 time points with the Mann-Kendall test and Sen’s slope estimator, with false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons. Monthly series were additionally evaluated using the Hamed-Rao modified Mann-Kendall test as a sensitivity analysis accounting for serial autocorrelation. Annual heatmaps and 12-month moving averages supported visual evaluation. Results: After FDR correction, significant increasing trends were identified in 11 of the 27 terms, whereas no significant decrease was detected. Significant increasing trends were observed for several terms, including steroid knee injection, robotic knee replacement, cartilage repair surgery, genicular nerve ablation, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) knee. Significant increases occurred across all three treatment categories. Among the sparse/low-volume series, exosome knee and stromal vascular fraction knee remained below the Google Trends reporting threshold for 90.0% and 92.5% of the study months, respectively, but showed marked increases in visibility during the final year. Conclusion: Worldwide Google search interest increased concurrently across multiple selected English-language terms related to conservative, orthobiologic/regenerative, and surgical treatments. These parallel increases suggest expanding information needs across the treatment spectrum rather than a simple shift from conventional to novel treatments. Google Trends may help identify emerging patient interests; however, independently normalized RSV values should not be used to compare the absolute popularity of different treatments.

🔖

Cite This Article

Acar, A., Atlı, O. Y. (2026). Ten-year changes in worldwide online search interest in English-language terms related to conservative, orthobiologic, and surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 5. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.2002047

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Dell’Isola A, Recenti F, Giardulli B, Lawford BJ, Kiadaliri A. Osteoarthritis year in review 2025: epidemiology and therapy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2025;33(11):1300-1306. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2025.08.015
  2. Li M, Xia Q, Nie Q, Ding L, Huang Z, Jiang Z. Burden of knee osteoarthritis in China and globally: 1990-2045. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025;26:582. doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08858-8
  3. GBD 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990-2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5:9. doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00163-7
  4. Balta O, Şahin K, Zengin EÇ, Eren MB, Altınayak H, Demir O. Severity of subchondral insufficiency knee fracture: is it associated with increasing age, femorotibial angle, and severity of meniscus extrusion? J Health Sci Med. 2022;5(2):625-632. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1065127
  5. Katz JN, Arant KR, Loeser RF. Diagnosis and treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a review. JAMA. 2021;325(6):568-578. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.22171
  6. Lim WB, Al-Dadah O. Conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a review of the literature. World J Orthop. 2022;13(3):212-229. doi:10.5312/wjo.v13.i3.212
  7. Pires DPC, Monte FA, Monteiro LF, Soares FRC, Faria JLR. Updates in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59:3. doi:10.1055/s-0044-1786351
  8. Aydemir A, Gürkan DY, Kapukaya EE, Korkmaz M. The investigation of frailty level and factors affecting frailty in older adults with osteoarthritis; a cross-sectional study on Turkish population. J Health Sci Med. 2024;7(4):387-394. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1453110
  9. Crespo-Gonzalez C, Benrimoj SI, Frommer M, Dineen-Griffin S. Navigating online health information: insights into consumer influence and decision-making strategies-an overview of reviews. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241286815. doi:10.1177/20552076241286815
  10. Klimiuk KB, Balwicki ŁW. What is infodemiology? An overview and its role in public health. Przegl Epidemiol. 2024;78(1):81-89. doi:10.32394/pe/188119
  11. Neumann K, Mason SM, Farkas K, Santaularia NJ, Ahern J, Riddell CA. Harnessing Google Health Trends data for epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(3):430-437. doi:10.1093/aje/kwac171
  12. Chiou H, Voegeli C, Wilhelm E, Kolis J, Brookmeyer K, Prybylski D. The future of infodemic surveillance as public health surveillance. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28:13. doi:10.3201/eid2813.220696
  13. Wilhelm E, Ballalai I, Belanger ME, et al. Measuring the burden of infodemics: summary of the methods and results of the Fifth WHO Infodemic Management Conference. JMIR Infodemiology. 2023:3. doi: 10.2196/44207
  14. Strotman PK, Novicoff WM, Nelson SJ, Browne JA. Increasing public interest in stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a Google Trends analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1053-1057. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.002
  15. Cohen SA, Cohen LE, Tijerina JD, et al. Google Trends as a tool for evaluating public interest in total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Transl Res. 2021;7(4):456-466. doi:10.18053/jctres.07.202104.006
  16. Brinkman JC, Christopher ZK, Moore ML, Pollock JR, Haglin JM, Bingham JS. Patient interest in robotic total joint arthroplasty is exponential: a 10-year Google Trends analysis. Arthroplast Today. 2022; 15:13-18. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2022.02.015
  17. Cinar C. Analyzing public interest in osteoarthritis and its minimally invasive treatments: a Google Trends analysis. Cureus. 2023;15:10. doi: 10.7759/cureus.47021
  18. Schlesinger N, Androulakis IP. Seasonal variation in public interest in gout: longitudinal infodemiology study using Google Trends (2014-2024). J Med Internet Res. 2025:27. doi:10.2196/75415
  19. Hamed KH, Rao AR. A modified Mann-Kendall trend test for autocorrelated data. J Hydrol. 1998;204(1-4):182-196. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00125-X
  20. Cohen SA, Brophy RH, Chen AF, Roberts KC, Quinn RH, Shea KG. Public interest in hyaluronic acid injections for knee osteoarthritis in the United States and Europe: an international Google Trends analysis. Arthroplast Today. 2022;18:157-162. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2022.09.003
  21. Ferraris G, Monzani D, Coppini V, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of online health information-seeking behaviours among cancer patients: a systematic review. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231210663. doi:10.1177/20552076231210663
  22. Springer S, Strzelecki A, Zieger M. Maximum generable interest: a universal standard for Google Trends search queries. Healthc Anal (N Y). 2023;3:100158. doi:10.1016/j.health.2023.100158
  23. Bensa A, Previtali D, Sangiorgio A, Boffa A, Salerno M, Filardo G. PRP injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: the improvement is clinically significant and influenced by platelet concentration: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(3):745-754. doi:10.1177/03635465241246524
  24. Zhou Q, Cai Y, Jiang Y, Lin X. Exosomes in osteoarthritis and cartilage injury: advanced development and potential therapeutic strategies. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16(11):1811-1820. doi:10.7150/ijbs.41637
  25. Kong Y, Wang Y, Yang Y, et al. Intra-articular injection of exosomes derived from different stem cells in animal models of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024;19(1):834. doi:10.1186/s13018-024-05227-4
  26. Fogarty AE, Burnham T, Kuo K, et al. The effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;101(5):482-492. doi:10.1097/PHM. 0000000000001813
  27. Brophy RH, Fillingham YA. AAOS Clinical practice guideline summary: management of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty), third edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30:9. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-21- 01233
  28. O’Connor D, Johnston RV, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2022:3. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD014328
  29. Sugianto JA, Hadipranata T, Lazarus G, Amrullah AH. Proximal fibular osteotomy for the management of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee. 2021;28:169-185. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2020.11.020
  30. Acar A, Girgin AB, Torun Ö, Acar AB. Is proximal fibular osteotomy a promising treatment option for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis? A narrative review. Indian J Orthop. 2026. doi:10.1007/s43465-026-01862-7
  31. Ayo-Ajibola O, Davis RJ, Lin ME, Riddell J, Kravitz RL. Characterizing the adoption and experiences of users of artificial intelligence-generated health information in the United States: cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Med Internet Res. 2024:26. doi:10.2196/55138