ArticleGeoHealth2026
Evaluation of Remotely Sensed Inundation Data Sets to Estimate Flood-Associated Emergency Department Visits After Hurricane Harvey.
Article in GeoHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Floods can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes through multiple pathways, including contamination of food and water. Remotely sensed (RS) inundation extents can help identify regions with expected heightened flood-related health risks, but variations across inundation data sets and their integration into health risk assessments may affect intervention targeting. We examined if the association between census tract (CT) flooding and intestinal infectious disease related emergency department (IID-ED) visits differed by RS-based exposure estimation methods. Two Hurricane Harvey Inundation data sets with different spatiotemporal resolutions were used to estimate CT-level exposure as percent land flooded and percent population flooded, yielding four exposure variables. These were linked to ED visits by residential CT, and the effect estimates for association between IID-ED visits and flooding were derived. A 10% increase in land flooded was associated with a 6% (1%-10%) higher risk of IID-ED visits, while percent population flooded was not significantly associated with IID-ED visits. No statistically significant differences were found in the effect estimates between the inundation data sets or the exposure representation methods. Combining data sets to identify flooded CTs improved model fitness compared to using either alone, indicating a 1.30 (1.16-1.45) times greater risk of IID-ED visits in flooded CTs compared to non-flooded CTs. CTs where the data sets disagreed also showed a 25% (8%-10%) higher risk of IID-ED visits compared to the mutually agreed non-flooded CTs. Combining remotely sensed inundation data sets of different specifications can address limitations of individual products and improve identifying intervention areas to mitigate flood-related health risks.
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.