Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32733923›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2020

An Introductory Framework for Choosing Spatiotemporal Analytical Tools in Population-Level Eco-Epidemiological Research.

Kaushi S T Kanankege, Julio Alvarez, Lin Zhang, Andres M Perez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Spatiotemporal Patterns of Hospitalizations Among Older Adults With Co-Presence of Cancer and Dementia in US Counties: 2013-2018.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kaushi S T KanankegeDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Julio AlvarezDepartamento de Sanidad Animal, Centro de Vigilancia Sanitaria Veterinaria (VISAVET), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Lin ZhangDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Andres M PerezDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
University of Minnesota · USUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Douglas Yee · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatiotemporal visualization and analytical tools (SATs) are increasingly being applied to risk-based surveillance/monitoring of adverse health events affecting humans, animals, and ecosystems. Different disciplines use diverse SATs to address similar research questions. The juxtaposition of these diverse techniques provides a list of options for researchers who are new to population-level spatial eco-epidemiology. Here, we are conducting a narrative review to provide an overview of the multiple available SATs, and introducing a framework for choosing among them when addressing common research questions across disciplines. The framework is comprised of three stages: (a) pre-hypothesis testing stage, in which hypotheses regarding the spatial dependence of events are generated; (b) primary hypothesis testing stage, in which the existence of spatial dependence and patterns are tested; and (c) secondary-hypothesis testing and spatial modeling stage, in which predictions and inferences were made based on the identified spatial dependences and associated covariates. In this step-wise process, six key research questions are formulated, and the answers to those questions should lead researchers to select one or more methods from four broad categories of SATs: (T1) visualization and descriptive analysis; (T2) spatial/spatiotemporal dependence and pattern recognition; (T3) spatial smoothing and interpolation; and (T4) geographic correlation studies (i.e., spatial modeling and regression). The SATs described here include both those used for decades and also other relatively new tools. Through this framework review, we intend to facilitate the choice among available SATs and promote their interdisciplinary use to support improving human, animal, and ecosystem health.

Indexed as

disease mappingepidemiologyframeworkgeographical/spatial analysisgeostatistics

Identifiers

PMID32733923
PMCPMC7358365
OpenAlexW3039363999

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.