» Articles » PMID: 38876558

Assessing and Attenuating the Impact of Selection Bias on Spatial Cluster Detection Studies

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2024 Jun 14
PMID 38876558
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

References
1.
Boyle J, Ward M, Cerhan J, Rothman N, Wheeler D . Estimating mixture effects and cumulative spatial risk over time simultaneously using a Bayesian index low-rank kriging multiple membership model. Stat Med. 2022; 41(29):5679-5697. PMC: 9691549. DOI: 10.1002/sim.9587. View

2.
Chatterjee N, Hartge P, Cerhan J, Cozen W, Davis S, Ishibe N . Risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and family history of lymphatic, hematologic, and other cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13(9):1415-21. View

3.
Oliver M, Matthews K, Siadaty M, Hauck F, Pickle L . Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies. Int J Health Geogr. 2005; 4:29. PMC: 1298322. DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-4-29. View

4.
Tang I, Bartell S, Vieira V . Unmatched spatially stratified controls: A simulation study examining efficiency and precision using spatially-diverse controls and generalized additive models. Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2023; 45:100584. DOI: 10.1016/j.sste.2023.100584. View

5.
Jacquez G, Kaufmann A, Meliker J, Goovaerts P, AvRuskin G, Nriagu J . Global, local and focused geographic clustering for case-control data with residential histories. Environ Health. 2005; 4(1):4. PMC: 1083418. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-4-4. View