ReviewKidney international reports2024
Geospatial Modeling Methods in Epidemiological Kidney Research: An Overview and Practical Example.
Review in Kidney international reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Geospatial modeling methods in population-level kidney research have not been used to full potential because few studies have completed associative spatial analyses between risk factors and exposures and kidney conditions and outcomes. Spatial modeling has several advantages over traditional modeling, including improved estimation of statistical variation and more accurate and unbiased estimation of coefficient effect direction or magnitudes by accounting for spatial data structure. Because most population-level kidney research data are geographically referenced, there is a need for better understanding of geospatial modeling for evaluating associations of individual geolocation with processes of care and clinical outcomes. In this review, we describe common spatial models, provide details to execute these analyses, and perform a case-study to display how results differ when integrating geographic structure. In our case-study, we used U.S. nationwide 2019 chronic kidney disease (CKD) data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Kidney Disease Surveillance System and 2006 to 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency environmental quality index (EQI) data and fit a nonspatial count model along with global spatial models (spatially lagged model [SLM]/pseudo-spatial error model [PSEM]) and a local spatial model (geographically weighted quasi-Poisson regression [GWQPR]). We found the SLM, PSEM, and GWQPR improved model fit in comparison to the nonspatial regression, and the PSEM model decreased the positive relationship between EQI and CKD prevalence. The GWQPR also revealed spatial heterogeneity in the EQI-CKD relationship. To summarize, spatial modeling has promise as a clinical and public health translational tool, and our case-study example is an exhibition of how these analyses may be performed to improve the accuracy and utility of findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.