Assessing and attenuating the impact of selection bias on spatial cluster detection studies

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.

Keywords: Case-control study; Epidemiology; Local spatial scan; Non-participation; Selection bias; Spatial cluster.

Figure 1.

Illustration of example case-control dataset from Spatial Risk 1, Participation N, Odds Ratio 3, with cases and controls represented by filled-in and empty dots respectively and the red region defining the zone of elevated risk.

Figure 2.

Most likely cluster in Iowa study center (in red) from NCI-SEER NHL study and observed sample. Participant locations have been randomly jittered to maintain confidentiality.

Figure 3.

Most likely cluster in Iowa study center (in red) from NCI-SEER NHL study and proposed method which added 10 participants to observed sample. Participant locations have been randomly jittered to maintain confidentiality.