Zhan F Benjamin, Brender Jean D, De Lima Ionara, Suarez Lucina, Langlois Peter H
Department of Geography, Texas Center for Geographic Information Science, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA.
Ann Epidemiol. 2006 Nov;16(11):842-9. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.08.001. Epub 2006 Oct 5.
This study compares the match rate and positional accuracy of two geocoding methods: the popular geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1 and the Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS.
We first geocoded 11,016 Texas addresses in a case-control study using both methods and obtained the match rate of each method. We then randomly selected 200 addresses from those geocoded by using both methods and obtained geographic coordinates of the 200 addresses by using a global positioning system (GPS) device. Of the 200 addresses, 110 were case maternal residence addresses and 90 were control maternal residence addresses. These GPS-surveyed coordinates were used as the "true" coordinates to calculate positional errors of geocoded locations. We used Wilcoxon signed rank test to evaluate whether differences in positional errors from the two methods were statistically significantly different from zero. In addition, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods for classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure.
The match rate of the Centrus GeoCoder was more than 10% greater than that of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Positional errors with the Centrus GeoCoder were less than those of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1, and this difference was statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of the two methods are similar.
Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS for geocoding gives greater match rates than the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Although the Centrus GeoCoder has better positional accuracy, both methods give similar results in classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure.
本研究比较两种地理编码方法的匹配率和定位精度，这两种方法分别是ArcGIS 9.1中常用的地理编码工具以及适用于ArcGIS的Centrus地理编码器。
在一项病例对照研究中，我们首先使用这两种方法对11016个得克萨斯州地址进行地理编码，并得出每种方法的匹配率。然后，我们从使用这两种方法进行地理编码的地址中随机选择200个地址，并使用全球定位系统（GPS）设备获取这200个地址的地理坐标。在这200个地址中，110个是病例组产妇的居住地址，90个是对照组产妇的居住地址。这些通过GPS测量得到的坐标被用作“真实”坐标，以计算地理编码位置的定位误差。我们使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验来评估两种方法的定位误差差异是否在统计学上显著不同于零。此外，当距离被用作暴露的替代指标时，我们计算了这两种方法在对距离有毒物质释放清单设施1500米范围内的产妇地址进行分类时的灵敏度和特异度。
Centrus地理编码器的匹配率比ArcGIS 9.1中的地理编码工具高出10%以上。Centrus地理编码器的定位误差小于ArcGIS 9.1中的地理编码工具，且这种差异具有统计学显著性。两种方法的灵敏度和特异度相似。
适用于ArcGIS的Centrus地理编码器在地理编码方面的匹配率高于ArcGIS 9.1中的地理编码工具。尽管Centrus地理编码器具有更好的定位精度，但当距离被用作暴露的替代指标时，在对距离有毒物质释放清单设施1500米范围内的产妇地址进行分类方面，两种方法给出的结果相似。
