4.5 Article

Monitoring change in spatial patterns of disease: comparing univariate and multivariate cumulative sum approaches

Journal

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 14, Pages 2195-2214

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1806

Keywords

diseases surveillance; monitoring; univariate and multivariate cumulative sums

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA92693-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [1R01 ES09816-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prospective disease surveillance has gained increasing attention, particularly in light of recent concern for quick detection of bioterrorist events. Monitoring of health events has the potential for the detection of such events, but the benefits of surveillance extend much more broadly to the quick detection of change in public health. In this paper, univariate and multivariate cumulative sum methods for disease surveillance are compared. Although the univariate method has been previously used in the context of health surveillance, the multivariate method has not. The univariate approach consists of simultaneously and independently monitoring the disease rate in each region; the multivariate approach accounts explicitly for any covariation between regions. The univariate approaches are limited by their lack of ability to account for the spatial autocorrelation of regional data; the multivariate methods are limited by the difficulty in accurately specifying the multiregional covariance structure. The methods are illustrated using both simulated data and county-level data on breast cancer in the northeastern United States. When the degree of spatial autocorrelation is low, the univariate method is generally better at detecting changes in rates that occur in a small number of regions; the multivariate is better when change occurs in a large number of regions. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available