A comparative analysis of aspatial statistics for detecting racial disparities in cancer mortality rates.
BACKGROUND
Our progress towards the goal of eliminating racial health disparities requires methods for assessing the existence, magnitude, and statistical significance of health disparities. In comparing disease rates, we must account for the unreliability of rates computed for small minority populations and within sparsely populated areas. Furthermore, as the number of geographic units under study increases, we also must account for multiple testing to assure we do not misclassify disparities as present when they actually are not (false positive). To date and to our knowledge, none of the methodologies in current use simultaneously address all of these important needs. And few, if any studies have undertaken a systematic comparison of methods to identify those that are statistically robust and reliable.


RESULTS
We introduced six test statistics for quantifying absolute and relative differences between cancer rates measured in distinct groups (i.e. race or ethnicity). These alternative measures were illustrated using age-adjusted prostate and lung cancer mortality rates for white and black males in 688 counties of the Southeastern US (1970-1994). Statistical performance, including power and proportion of false positives, was investigated in simulation studies that mimic different scenarios for the magnitude and frequency of disparities. Two test statistics, which are based on the difference and ratio of rates, consistently outperformed the other measures. Corrections for multiple testing actually increased misclassification compared with the unadjusted tests and are not recommended. One-tailed tests allowed the researcher to consider a priori hypotheses beyond the basic test that the two rates are different.


CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of significant racial disparities across geographic areas is an important tool in guiding cancer control practices, and public health officials must consider the problems of small population size and multiple comparison, and should conduct disparity analyses using both absolute (difference, RD statistic) and relative (ratio, RR statistic) measures. Simple test statistics to assess the significance of rate difference and rate ratio perform well, and their unadjusted p-values provide a realistic assessment of the proportion of type I errors (i.e. disparities wrongly declared significant).
Goovaerts
Pierre
P
BioMedware, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. goovaerts@biomedware.com
Meliker
Jaymie R
JR
Jacquez
Geoffrey M
GM
D001741:Black or African American; D015982:Bias; D016010:Binomial Distribution; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000208:ethnology* / Q000401:mortality*; D008297:Male; D016012:Poisson Distribution; D011336:Probability; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000208:ethnology* / Q000401:mortality*; D012372:ROC Curve; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D012306:Risk; D018401:Sample Size; D015144:Southeastern United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D044465:White People