Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparisons of spatial clusters from multiple cluster identification methods

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
Feske, M., et al. 2011 [93, 178] 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
  1. GWR geographically weighted regression; LISA local indicators of spatial association