Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16151879›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2005

Answering cluster investigation requests: the value of simple simulations and statistical tools.

Stéphanie Bellec, Denis Hémon, Jacqueline Clavel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stéphanie BellecFrench Institute of Health and Medical Research, INSERM, U170, IFR69, Université Paris XI, 16, av. Paul Vaillant-Couturier, F-94807 cedex, Villejuif, France. bellec@vjf.inserm.fr
Denis Hémon
Jacqueline Clavel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cluster investigations remain an important public health issue as the number of reported clusters and public concern increase. This study shows how statistical considerations and a simulation tool may be helpful in providing communities with proper answers to the questions usually raised in such situations: How surprising is an observed childhood cancer excess? What could be learned from a statistical test? What could be learned from a case-control study? Using real demographic and incidence-rate data together with simulations based on the hypothesis that incidence rates are homogeneous, the probabilities of observing given situations were estimated. A number of real situations have been used as examples. The results of the simulation study showed, in detail, that no reliable information on the reality of an observed excess could be obtained a posteriori from a statistical test. A cluster of the same size may or may not be surprising, depending on the spatial area and time window to which the cases are related (i.e., the expected number of cases), and depending on the size of the referential territory to which this area is associated. The lack of power of a case-control study if no particular unusual exposure is present is also addressed. The approach described in this paper can easily be reproduced and adapted to many situations. It may be of assistance to health departments conducting cluster investigations and communicating with the public.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisModels, StatisticalAdolescentCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolEpidemiologic MethodsFranceHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornNeoplasmsPublic HealthRegistries

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.