Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20161766›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Using imputation to provide location information for nongeocoded addresses.

Frank C Curriero, Martin Kulldorff, Francis P Boscoe, Ann C Klassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of geoimputation strategies in a large case study.International journal of health geographics · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Frank C CurrieroDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences and Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America. fcurrier@jhsph.edu
Martin Kulldorff
Francis P Boscoe
Ann C Klassen

Funding

Validating Area-Level Behavioral Profiles for Cancer Disparities ResearchR21CA124921 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI KLASSEN, ANN CARROLL · 2007 to 2008
$361k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA124921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of geography as a source of variation in health research continues to receive sustained attention in the literature. The inclusion of geographic information in such research often begins by adding data to a map which is predicated by some knowledge of location. A precise level of spatial information is conventionally achieved through geocoding, the geographic information system (GIS) process of translating mailing address information to coordinates on a map. The geocoding process is not without its limitations, though, since there is always a percentage of addresses which cannot be converted successfully (nongeocodable). This raises concerns regarding bias since traditionally the practice has been to exclude nongeocoded data records from analysis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn this manuscript we develop and evaluate a set of imputation strategies for dealing with missing spatial information from nongeocoded addresses. The strategies are developed assuming a known zip code with increasing use of collateral information, namely the spatial distribution of the population at risk. Strategies are evaluated using prostate cancer data obtained from the Maryland Cancer Registry. We consider total case enumerations at the Census county, tract, and block group level as the outcome of interest when applying and evaluating the methods. Multiple imputation is used to provide estimated total case counts based on complete data (geocodes plus imputed nongeocodes) with a measure of uncertainty. Results indicate that the imputation strategy based on using available population-based age, gender, and race information performed the best overall at the county, tract, and block group levels. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The procedure allows for the potentially biased and likely under reported outcome, case enumerations based on only the geocoded records, to be presented with a statistically adjusted count (imputed count) with a measure of uncertainty that are based on all the case data, the geocodes and imputed nongeocodes. Similar strategies can be applied in other analysis settings.

Indexed as

Geographic Information SystemsData CollectionGeographyHealth ServicesHumansMaleMarylandPostal ServiceProstatic NeoplasmsRegistriesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID20161766
PMCPMC2818716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.