Systematic mapping review of statistical methods applied to the relationships between cancer diagnosis and
Jessica Andretta Mendes1,2, Thomas Keegan3, Lisa Jones4
1Lancaster University Medical School, Lancaster, UK jessica.mendes@ndm.ox.ac.uk l.sedda@lancaster.ac.uk.
Objectives:
We examined studies that analysed the spatial association of cancers with demographic, environmental, behavioural and/or socioeconomic factors and the statistical methods applied.
Design:
Systematic mapping review.
Data Sources:
Web of Science (SSCI) (search on 28 July 2022), MEDLINE, SocINDEX and CINAHL (search on 4 August 2022), additional searches included grey literature.
Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies:
(1) Focused on the constituent countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and its major regions (eg, the North West); (2) compared cancer(s) outcomes with demographic, environmental, behavioural and socioeconomic characteristics by applying methods to identify their spatial association; (3) reported cancer prevalence, incidence rates, relative risk or ORs for a risk factor or to an average level of cancer.
Data Extraction And Synthesis:
A standardised data extraction form was developed and for all studies, core data were extracted including bibliographic information, study design, geographical factors analysed, data aggregation level, methods applied and main findings. We described and synthesised the characteristics of the studies using summary tables, charts and graphs.
Results:
52 studies were included covering a variety of objectives and geographical scales. These studies considered different types of cancer, with the most common cancer types analysed being blood and lymphoid cell cancers. The most common methods used to assess the association between cancers and geographical level factors were regression analyses, with the majority being Poisson regression, then logistic and linear regression. Studies were usually conducted at ward and local authority level, or by exact point location when distances from putative risk sources were considered. The results were usually presented in plots or as tables, instead of maps.
Conclusion:
Our results highlight the lack of consideration of spatially explicit models in the analysed studies, with the risk of having failed the assumption of independence in the data.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42022349165.
More Related Videos
05:49Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Data to Guide Sampling Procedures for Prostate Cancer Biobanking
Published on: October 10, 2019
07:41Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases
Published on: May 17, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Introduction to Epidemiology
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
