Literature DB >> 20087879

Spatial autocorrelation among automated geocoding errors and its effects on testing for disease clustering.

Dale L Zimmerman1, Jie Li, Xiangming Fang.   

Abstract

Automated geocoding of patient addresses is an important data assimilation component of many spatial epidemiologic studies. Inevitably, the geocoding process results in positional errors. Positional errors incurred by automated geocoding tend to reduce the power of tests for disease clustering and otherwise affect spatial analytic methods. However, there are reasons to believe that the errors may often be positively spatially correlated and that this may mitigate their deleterious effects on spatial analyses. In this article, we demonstrate explicitly that the positional errors associated with automated geocoding of a data set of more than 6000 addresses in Carroll County, Iowa are spatially autocorrelated. Furthermore, through two simulation studies of disease processes, including one in which the disease process is overlain upon the Carroll County addresses, we show that spatial autocorrelation among geocoding errors maintains the power of two tests for disease clustering at a level higher than that which would occur if the errors were independent. Implications of these results for cluster detection, privacy protection, and measurement error modeling of geographic health data are discussed. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20087879      PMCID: PMC2888969          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  23 in total

1.  Positional accuracy of geocoded addresses in epidemiologic research.

Authors:  Matthew R Bonner; Daikwon Han; Jing Nie; Peter Rogerson; John E Vena; Jo L Freudenheim
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  The accuracy of address coding and the effects of coding errors.

Authors:  Nataliya Kravets; Wilbur C Hadden
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2005-09-12       Impact factor: 4.078

3.  Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding.

Authors:  Mary H Ward; John R Nuckols; James Giglierano; Matthew R Bonner; Calvin Wolter; Matthew Airola; Wende Mix; Joanne S Colt; Patricia Hartge
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Privacy protection versus cluster detection in spatial epidemiology.

Authors:  Karen L Olson; Shaun J Grannis; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Comparison of residential geocoding methods in population-based study of air quality and birth defects.

Authors:  Suzanne M Gilboa; Pauline Mendola; Andrew F Olshan; Catherine Harness; Dana Loomis; Peter H Langlois; David A Savitz; Amy H Herring
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 6.498

6.  Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  M Norman Oliver; Kevin A Matthews; Mir Siadaty; Fern R Hauck; Linda W Pickle
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 3.918

7.  Effect of spatial resolution on cluster detection: a simulation study.

Authors:  Al Ozonoff; Caroline Jeffery; Justin Manjourides; Laura Forsberg White; Marcello Pagano
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 3.918

8.  Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses.

Authors:  Michael R Cayo; Thomas O Talbot
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.918

9.  Geocoding accuracy and the recovery of relationships between environmental exposures and health.

Authors:  Soumya Mazumdar; Gerard Rushton; Brian J Smith; Dale L Zimmerman; Kelley J Donham
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 3.918

10.  Estimating the accuracy of geographical imputation.

Authors:  Kevin A Henry; Francis P Boscoe
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2008-01-23       Impact factor: 3.918

View more
  7 in total

1.  Error propagation models to examine the effects of geocoding quality on spatial analysis of individual-level datasets.

Authors:  P A Zandbergen; T C Hart; K E Lenzer; M E Camponovo
Journal:  Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol       Date:  2012-02-11

Review 2.  A Review and Framework for Categorizing Current Research and Development in Health Related Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Studies.

Authors:  A K Lyseen; C Nøhr; E M Sørensen; O Gudes; E M Geraghty; N T Shaw; C Bivona-Tellez
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

3.  A research agenda: does geocoding positional error matter in health GIS studies?

Authors:  Geoffrey M Jacquez
Journal:  Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol       Date:  2012-02-14

4.  Influence of Demographic and Health Survey Point Displacements on Distance-Based Analyses.

Authors:  Joshua L Warren; Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Clara R Burgert; Michael E Emch
Journal:  Spat Demogr       Date:  2015-06-23

5.  Spatial and temporal analysis of hospitalized dengue patients in Bandung: demographics and risk.

Authors:  Lia Faridah; I Gede Nyoman Mindra; Ramadhani Eka Putra; Nisa Fauziah; Dwi Agustian; Yessika Adelwin Natalia; Kozo Watanabe
Journal:  Trop Med Health       Date:  2021-05-26

6.  Spatial Heterogeneity in Positional Errors: A Comparison of Two Residential Geocoding Efforts in the Agricultural Health Study.

Authors:  Jared A Fisher; Maya Spaur; Ian D Buller; Abigail R Flory; Laura E Beane Freeman; Jonathan N Hofmann; Michael Giangrande; Rena R Jones; Mary H Ward
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology.

Authors:  Ellen J Kinnee; Sheila Tripathy; Leah Schinasi; Jessie L C Shmool; Perry E Sheffield; Fernando Holguin; Jane E Clougherty
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.