Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27729017›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

Impact of socioeconomic inequalities on geographic disparities in cancer incidence: comparison of methods for spatial disease mapping.

Juste Aristide Goungounga, Jean Gaudart, Marc Colonna, Roch Giorgi

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Area-Level Determinants in Colorectal Cancer Spatial Clustering Studies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Characteristics of Composite Deprivation Indices Used in Public Health: A Scoping Review Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Juste Aristide GoungoungaAix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France.
Jean GaudartAix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France.
Marc ColonnaRegistre des cancers de l'Isère, CHU de Grenoble, F-38000, Grenoble, France.
Roch GiorgiAix Marseille University, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France. roch.giorgi@univ-amu.fr.
Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRInserm · FRInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reliability of spatial statistics is often put into question because real spatial variations may not be found, especially in heterogeneous areas. Our objective was to compare empirically different cluster detection methods. We assessed their ability to find spatial clusters of cancer cases and evaluated the impact of the socioeconomic status (e.g., the Townsend index) on cancer incidence.

methodsMoran's I, the empirical Bayes index (EBI), and Potthoff-Whittinghill test were used to investigate the general clustering. The local cluster detection methods were: i) the spatial oblique decision tree (SpODT); ii) the spatial scan statistic of Kulldorff (SaTScan); and, iii) the hierarchical Bayesian spatial modeling (HBSM) in a univariate and multivariate setting. These methods were used with and without introducing the Townsend index of socioeconomic deprivation known to be related to the distribution of cancer incidence. Incidence data stemmed from the Cancer Registry of Isère and were limited to prostate, lung, colon-rectum, and bladder cancers diagnosed between 1999 and 2007 in men only.

resultsThe study found a spatial heterogeneity (p < 0.01) and an autocorrelation for prostate (EBI = 0.02; p = 0.001), lung (EBI = 0.01; p = 0.019) and bladder (EBI = 0.007; p = 0.05) cancers. After introduction of the Townsend index, SaTScan failed in finding cancers clusters. This introduction changed the results obtained with the other methods. SpODT identified five spatial classes (p < 0.05): four in the Western and one in the Northern parts of the study area (standardized incidence ratios: 1.68, 1.39, 1.14, 1.12, and 1.16, respectively). In the univariate setting, the Bayesian smoothing method found the same clusters as the two other methods (RR >1.2). The multivariate HBSM found a spatial correlation between lung and bladder cancers (r = 0.6).

conclusionsIn spatial analysis of cancer incidence, SpODT and HBSM may be used not only for cluster detection but also for searching for confounding or etiological factors in small areas. Moreover, the multivariate HBSM offers a flexible and meaningful modeling of spatial variations; it shows plausible previously unknown associations between various cancers.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesSocioeconomic FactorsAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisFranceGeography, MedicalHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncidenceLung NeoplasmsMaleModels, TheoreticalMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsCancerCluster detectionOblique decision treeSpatial analysis

Identifiers

PMID27729017
PMCPMC5059978
OpenAlexW2531414122

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.