From: Methods used in the spatial analysis of tuberculosis epidemiology: a systematic review
Author, year | Methods | Outcome | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Alene, K, 2017 [49] | Local Moran’s I Getis and Ord | Clustered Clustered | 50% similarity (two non-significant clusters identified by LISA) |
Álvarez-Hernández, G., et al. 2010 [145] | Local Moran’s I Besag and Newell | No significant Clustered | Widely conflicting |
Dangisso M, et al. 2015 [26] | Getis and Ord Spatial scan statistic | Clustered Clustered | Similar overall pattern, but marked differences by years |
Getis and Ord GWR residuals | Clustered Heterogeneous | Similar overall pattern, but some local differences | |
Ge E, et al. 2016 [139] | Getis and Ord Spatial scan statistic | Clustered Clustered | Similar overall pattern, but differences in some locations and across time |
Haase I, et al. 2007 [2] | Hotspot analysis SaTScan | Clustered Clustered | Similar overall pattern, but some local differences |
Hassarangsee S, et al. 2015 [138] | LISA Spatial scan statistic | Clustered Clustered | Very similar, but not identical |
Li L, et al. 2016 [135] | LISA Spatial scan statistic | No significant cluster, Clustered | Widely conflicting |
Maceiel ELN, et al. 2010 [131] | LISA, Getis and Ord Model prediction | Clustered Heterogeneous | Widely conflicting |
Wubuli A, et al. 2015 [16] | LISA Getis and Ord | Clustered Clustered | Similar overall pattern, but some local differences |
Wang T, et al 2016 [102] | Spatial scan statistic Getis and Ord | Clustered Clustered | Similar overall pattern, but some local differences |