Table 1 Potthoff–Whittinghill test for the existence of a spatial heterogeneity in the incidence of childhood acute leukaemia in France 1990–2000. (a) Spatial heterogeneity over the whole territory (36 343 communes) and (b) Spatial heterogeneity in isolated communes in relation to population density

From: Spatial and space–time clustering of childhood acute leukaemia in France from 1990 to 2000: a nationwide study

  

Whole period 1990–2000

1990–1994

1995–2000

 

Age (years)

No. cases

β̂a (P -valueb)

No. cases

β̂ (P -value)

No. cases

β̂ (P -value)

(a) Spatial heterogeneity over the whole territory (36 343 communes)

All AL

0–14

4897

0.5% (0.23)

2236

1.2% (0.06)

2261

0.2% (0.38)

 

0–4

2471

0.1% (0.40)

1141

0% (0.40)

1330

−0.25% (0.60)

 

5–9

1435

−0.5% (0.75)

666

−0.25% (0.62)

769

−0.2% (0.49)

 

10–14

991

−0.4% (0.69)

429

−0.2% (0.45)

562

−0.2% (0.56)

ALL

0–14

3993

0.35% (0.32)

1831

1.2% (0.07)

2162

−0.1% (0.52)

 

0–4

2045

0.05% (0.40)

851

0.3% (0.28)

1094

−0.2% (0.54)

 

5–9

1208

−0.5% (0.73)

559

−0.4% (0.77)

649

0.03% (0.34)

 

10–14

740

−0.4% (0.67)

321

−0.6% (0.95)

419

−0.3% (0.62)

AML

0–14

837

−0.5% (0.74)

374

0.3% (0.18)

463

−0.4% (0.70)

 

0–4

395

0.01% (0.32)

179

0.6% (0.07)

216

−0.2% (0.48)

 

5–9

205

−0.3% (0.63)

94

−0.1% (0.47)

111

−0.2% (0.74)

 

10–14

237

−0.2% (0.47)

101

0.1% (0.13)

136

−0.15% (0.45)

  

1990–2000

1990–1994

1995–2000

  

No. cases

β̂a (P -valueb)

No. cases

β̂ (P -value)

No. cases

β̂ (P -value)

(b) Spatial heterogeneity in isolated communes in relation to population density

 

014

      
 

 Isolated communes

1469

0.1% (0.29)

700

1.6% (0.04)

769

−0.2% (0.41)

 

50 inhab/km2

554

0.0% (0.28)

239

0.1% (0.27)

315

0.5% (0.14)

 

>50 inhab/km2

915

0.5% (0.39)

461

5.5% (0.01)

454

−2.3% (0.92)

 

0–4

      
 

 Isolated communes

733

0.2 (0.34)

355

0.3% (0.29)

378

−0.3% (0.53)

 

50 inhab/km2

292

0.1% (0.34)

125

−0.5% (0.50)

167

−0.1% (0.34)

 

>50 inhab/km2

441

0.5% (0.35)

230

2.5% (0.10)

211

−0.9% (0.64)

 

5–9

      
 

 Isolated communes

423

−0.8% (0.86)

196

−4.3% (0.66)

227

−0.5% (0.63)

 

50 inhab/km2

151

−0.7% (0.64)

64

−0.3% (0.17)

87

−0.4% (0.28)

 

>50 inhab/km2

272

−1.3% (0.77)

132

−0.8% (0.64)

140

−0.6% (0.57)

 

10–4

      
 

 Isolated communes

313

−0.2% (0.55)

149

0.0% (0.34)

164

−0.3% (0.48)

 

50 inhab/km2

111

−0.3% (0.43)

50

−0.2% (0.11)

61

−0.3% (0.15)

 

>50 inhab/km2

202

−0.1% (0.49)

99

0.5% (0.32)

103

−0.2% (0.40)

  1. Isolated communes: non attractive communes, in terms of employment, that are included in a unit with less than 5000 inhabitants (Rudant et al, 2005).
  2. aFollowing (Alexander and Boyle, 1996), the ratio of the variance to the mean of the number of cases in any area was equal to 1+β.
  3. bThe Statistical significance level was based on the one-sided tail probability of the null distribution (1000 Monte Carlo simulations).
  4. The Statistical significance level was based on the one-sided tail probability of the null distribution (999 Monte Carlo simulations).