Cited by 166Liver Diseases and ImmunityPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and TreatmentsSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

The geographical distribution of primary biliary cirrhosis in a well-defined cohort

Open access
Prince, Martin I., Chetwynd, Amanda, Diggle, Peter, Jarner, Mikala, Metcalf, Jane V., James, Oliver F. W.·2001·Hepatology

Abstract

The incidence of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) varies widely between regions. However, little is known about variation within regions and the degree to which this may reflect environmental risk factors. The aim of this study was to describe the spatial distribution of cases of PBC in a defined region of Northeast England over a defined period, and to assess the magnitude of any departure from random spatial distribution. Seven hundred seventy patients with established PBC were identified in a previous comprehensive case finding study. A total of 3,044 control locations were randomly selected from postcode (zip code) data weighted for number of drop off points per postcode. Geographical analysis was performed by testing both for spatial variation in risk and local clustering by using previously described point process methods. Both tests used the same null hypothesis that risk of disease does not vary spatially and cases occur independently of each other. Statistically significant spatial variations in risk were found in the whole study region (P < .001) and in the major urban area within the region (P < .004). Risk was higher in the urban area of Tyneside than in the surrounding rural area. Within the rural area, spatial variation in risk was equivocal (P = .012), but there was significant (P = .001) clustering of cases (estimated average cluster effect approximately 10 excess cases within a 7-km radius). PBC occurred to a density of 10.7 cases/km 2 in the highest risk areas. In conclusion, PBC is unevenly distributed in Northeast England. This may reflect one or more environmental risk factors in its etiology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/jhep.2001.29760

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 166

Authors
Prince, M. I., Chetwynd, A., Diggle, P., Jarner, M., Metcalf, J. V., & James, O. F. W.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
James, Oliver F. W.
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2001-12
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1083-1088
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092884588
Cited by
166
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Diseases and Immunity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
primary biliary cirrhosis, geographic distribution, spatial clustering, environmental risk factors, urban-rural differences, Tyneside, North East England, case-control study
MeSH terms
Demography, England, Humans, Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary, Random Allocation, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Cluster Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review