A fair comparison between the spatial scan and the Besag–Newell Disease clustering tests

Abstract

Routine surveillance of a large geographic region for clusters of adverse health events, particularly cancers, often involves small area health data, possibly controlling for exposure information. Many different methods have been proposed to test for the presence of geographical clusters. Two of the most popular methods are the spatial scan method proposed by Kulldorff and that using a fixed number of cases within scanning circles proposed by Besag and Newell. Although the second test is very popular, it has some difficulties. While the scan test controls for the multiple testing problem, the Besag and Newell test does not. Additionally, the latter method requires the setting of several tuning parameters whose values affect the test performance and are subjectively chosen by the user. This creates a difficulty to make a fair comparison between the two methods and it explains why there have been few formal studies evaluating their relative performances. In this paper, we modify the Besag and Newell test allowing for the control of the error type I probability and compare its power with respect to that of the spatial scan test. We used data sets from a publicly available simulated benchmark. We found that the two methods have similar results, except for clusters located in sparsely populated regions, where the spatial scan method presented a better performance.