↓ Skip to main content

Confidence intervals for rate ratios between geographic units

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Confidence intervals for rate ratios between geographic units
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12942-016-0073-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Zhu, Linda W. Pickle, James B. Pearson

Abstract

Ratios of age-adjusted rates between a set of geographic units and the overall area are of interest to the general public and to policy stakeholders. These ratios are correlated due to two reasons-the first being that each region is a component of the overall area and hence there is an overlap between them; and the second is that there is spatial autocorrelation between the regions. Existing methods in calculating the confidence intervals of rate ratios take into account the first source of correlation. This paper incorporates spatial autocorrelation, along with the correlation due to area overlap, into the rate ratio variance and confidence interval calculations. The proposed method divides the rate ratio variances into three components, representing no correlation, overlap correlation, and spatial autocorrelation, respectively. Results applied to simulated and real cancer mortality and incidence data show that with increasing strength and scales in spatial autocorrelation, the proposed method leads to substantial improvements over the existing method. If the data do not show spatial autocorrelation, the proposed method performs as well as the existing method. The calculations are relatively easy to implement, and we recommend using this new method to calculate rate ratio confidence intervals in all cases.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Mathematics 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2016.
All research outputs
#21,921,391
of 24,457,696 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#560
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#365,410
of 430,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,457,696 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.