ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing methods for comparative urban research: A city-centric protocol and longitudinal dataset for US metropolitan statistical areas.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative urban research in the USA has an unacknowledged data and methodological problem at the metropolitan scale, rooted in geographic and definitional boundary changes of urban areas across time. In this article, we introduce a new spatial dataset, decision criteria, and methodological protocol for longitudinal and comparative research with US metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)-known as 'metros'-in a way that centers a 'city-centric' approach to comparison while significantly reducing spatial error and bias. First, we review gaps and limitations of existing approaches and identify three major but previously unacknowledged sources of error, including a new source of bias we call 'spanning error.' Next, we explain our methodological protocol and decision criteria, which are guided by the twin aims of reducing spatial bias and ensuring metropolitan consistency over time. We then introduce our improved dataset, which covers the 50 largest MSAs from 1980-2020. We argue that by centering the urban area as the fundamental unit of analysis-a city-centric approach-our methodology and dataset provides robust and dynamic metropolitan definitions that advance comparative urban studies while improving precision and accuracy in urban data analysis across different time scales. We discuss broader applications of our methodology and identify advantages and limitations over existing techniques, including potential applications of this work in policy, planning, and future research.
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.