Share This Article:

Statistical Significance of Geographic Heterogeneity Measures in Spatial Epidemiologic Studies

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:776KB) PP. 46-50
DOI: 10.4236/ojs.2015.51006    3,488 Downloads   3,856 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment


Assessing geographic variations in health events is one of the major tasks in spatial epidemiologic studies. Geographic variation in a health event can be estimated using the neighborhood-level variance that is derived from a generalized mixed linear model or a Bayesian spatial hierarchical model. Two novel heterogeneity measures, including median odds ratio and interquartile odds ratio, have been developed to quantify the magnitude of geographic variations and facilitate the data interpretation. However, the statistical significance of geographic heterogeneity measures was inaccurately estimated in previous epidemiologic studies that reported two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on standard error of the variance or 95% credible intervals with a range from 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles of the Bayesian posterior distribution. Given the mathematical algorithms of heterogeneity measures, the statistical significance of geographic variation should be evaluated using a one-tailed P value. Therefore, previous studies using two-tailed 95% confidence intervals based on a standard error of the variance may have underestimated the geographic variation in events of their interest and those using 95% Bayesian credible intervals may need to re-evaluate the geographic variation of their study outcomes.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Lian, M. (2015) Statistical Significance of Geographic Heterogeneity Measures in Spatial Epidemiologic Studies. Open Journal of Statistics, 5, 46-50. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2015.51006.


[1] Elliott, P. and Wartenberg, D. (2004) Spatial Epidemiology: Current Approaches and Future Challenges. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112, 998-1006.
[2] Larsen, K., Petersen, J.H., Budtz-Jorgensen, E. and Endahl, L. (2000) Interpreting Parameters in the Logistic Regression Model with Random Effects. Biometrics, 56, 909-914.
[3] Larsen, K. and Merlo, J. (2005) Appropriate Assessment of Neighborhood Effects on Individual Health: Integrating Random and Fixed Effects in Multilevel Logistic Regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161, 81-88.
[4] Merlo, J., Chaix, B., Ohlsson, H., Beckman, A., Johnell, K., Hjerpe, P., Rastam, L. and Larsen, K. (2006) A Brief Conceptual Tutorial of Multilevel Analysis in Social Epidemiology: Using Measures of Clustering in Multilevel Logistic Regression to Investigate Contextual Phenomena. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 290-297.
[5] Chaix, B., Merlo, J., Subramanian, S.V., Lynch, J. and Chauvin, P. (2005) Comparison of a Spatial Perspective with the Multilevel Analytical Approach in Neighborhood Studies: The Case of Mental and Behavioral Disorders Due to Psychoactive Substance Use in Malmo, Sweden, 2001. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 171-182.
[6] Chaix, B., Rosvall, M. and Merlo, J. (2007) Assessment of the Magnitude of Geographical Variations and Socioeconomic Contextual Effects on Ischaemic Heart Disease Mortality: A Multilevel Survival Analysis of a Large Swedish Cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 349-355.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.