ArticleSpatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology2024
Assessing and attenuating the impact of selection bias on spatial cluster detection studies.
Article in Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial cluster analyses are commonly used in epidemiologic studies of case-control data to detect whether certain areas in a study region have an excess of disease risk. Case-control studies are susceptible to potential biases including selection bias, which can result from non-participation of eligible subjects in the study. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the effects of non-participation on the findings of spatial cluster analyses. In this paper, we perform a simulation study assessing the effect of non-participation on spatial cluster analysis using the local spatial scan statistic under a variety of scenarios that vary the location and rates of study non-participation and the presence and intensity of a zone of elevated risk for disease for simulated case-control studies. We find that geographic areas of lower participation among controls than cases can greatly inflate false-positive rates for identification of artificial spatial clusters. Additionally, we find that even modest non-participation outside of a true zone of elevated risk can decrease spatial power to identify the true zone. We propose a spatial algorithm to correct for potentially spatially structured non-participation that compares the spatial distributions of the observed sample and underlying population. We demonstrate its ability to markedly decrease false positive rates in the absence of elevated risk and resist decreasing spatial sensitivity to detect true zones of elevated risk. We apply our method to a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to the potential effects of non-participation in spatial cluster studies.
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.