On the use of ZIP codes and ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) for the spatial analysis of epidemiological data.
On the use of ZIP codes and ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) for the spatial analysis of epidemiological data.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1476-072x-5-58
复制
发表时间：
2006-12-13
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Matisziw, Timothy C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grubesic, Tony H;Matisziw, Timothy C
背景技术背景：虽然越来越多地使用空间参照数据分析流行病学数据，但与选择适当的地理分析单位有关的问题也在出现。一个特别有问题的单位是邮政编码。由于缺乏标准化和高度动态的结构，使用邮政编码和邮政编码制表区（ZCTA）的疾病的空间分析提出了一个独特的挑战，研究人员。与这些单位检测疾病的空间模式的相关问题explored.RESULTS：一个简短的审查邮政编码和他们的空间表示进行。虽然经常表示为多边形，以方便分析，邮政编码实际上是在一个较窄的空间分辨率，反映他们服务的街道地址定义。这项研究表明，它们作为连续区域的泛化是一种强加的结构，可能对研究结果的解释产生严重影响。邮政编码地区和人口普查定义的ZCTA，两个常用的多边形表示的邮政编码地址范围，检查在努力确定空间统计的敏感性，出现在这些表示方式的定义差异。在这里，比较分析集中在纽约州前列腺癌模式的检测。对于利用局部空间统计测试的研究来说，特别感兴趣的是邮政编码区域和ZCTA的拓扑结构差异会导致不同的疾病空间模式。这些差异与邮政编码信息概括中使用的不同方法有关。由于与生成邮政编码边界相关的困难，邮政编码区域和ZCTA都包含许多表示错误，这些错误可能对空间分析产生重大影响。虽然使用邮政编码多边形的空间分析是相对简单的，ZCTA表示包含额外的拓扑功能（如湖泊和河流），并包含碎片化的多边形，可以阻碍spatial analysis.CONCLUSION：必须谨慎使用空间参考数据时，特别是这是由于邮政编码和ZCTA，流行病学分析。研究人员应该认识到与两个地理位置及其导致的空间不匹配相关的表征错误，特别是在比较使用不同拓扑表征获得的结果时。虽然ZCTA可能是有问题的，但在地理信息系统中很容易实现拓扑校正以纠正错误的聚合效应。
BACKGROUND: While the use of spatially referenced data for the analysis of epidemiological data is growing, issues associated with selecting the appropriate geographic unit of analysis are also emerging. A particularly problematic unit is the ZIP code. Lacking standardization and highly dynamic in structure, the use of ZIP codes and ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTA) for the spatial analysis of disease present a unique challenge to researchers. Problems associated with these units for detecting spatial patterns of disease are explored.RESULTS: A brief review of ZIP codes and their spatial representation is conducted. Though frequently represented as polygons to facilitate analysis, ZIP codes are actually defined at a narrower spatial resolution reflecting the street addresses they serve. This research shows that their generalization as continuous regions is an imposed structure that can have serious implications in the interpretation of research results. ZIP codes areas and Census defined ZCTAs, two commonly used polygonal representations of ZIP code address ranges, are examined in an effort to identify the spatial statistical sensitivities that emerge given differences in how these representations are defined. Here, comparative analysis focuses on the detection of patterns of prostate cancer in New York State. Of particular interest for studies utilizing local, spatial statistical tests, is that differences in the topological structures of ZIP code areas and ZCTAs give rise to different spatial patterns of disease. These differences are related to the different methodologies used in the generalization of ZIP code information. Given the difficulty associated with generating ZIP code boundaries, both ZIP code areas and ZCTAs contain numerous representational errors which can have a significant impact on spatial analysis. While the use of ZIP code polygons for spatial analysis is relatively straightforward, ZCTA representations contain additional topological features (e.g. lakes and rivers) and contain fragmented polygons that can hinder spatial analysis.CONCLUSION: Caution must be exercised when using spatially referenced data, particularly that which is attributed to ZIP codes and ZCTAs, for epidemiological analysis. Researchers should be cognizant of representational errors associated with both geographies and their resulting spatial mismatch, especially when comparing the results obtained using different topological representations. While ZCTAs can be problematic, topological corrections are easily implemented in a geographic information system to remedy erroneous aggregation effects.