Comparación de las aplicaciones de Google y Yahoo para la geocodificación de direcciones postales con fines epidemiológicos

Quesada, José A.; Nolasco, Andreu; Vasallo, Joaquín Moncho

doi:10.4321/s1135-57272013000200009

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notice, however, that most previous studies have used the coordinates obtained using hand-held GPS receivers as the gold-standard – accuracy around 10–20 meters – rather than cadastral maps, which are much more accurate – accuracy of 1 meter for a 1/2000 scale map. Regarding the recently available GE batch AG tool, to our knowledge, only one study addressed its positional error (still relative to GPS measurements) [17] . Authors reported a median error of 22 meters, slightly higher than our estimate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various address georeferencing (AG) tools are currently available. But little is known about the quality of each tool. Using data from the EPIPorto cohort we compared the most commonly used AG tools in terms of positional error (PE) and subjects' misclassification according to census tract socioeconomic status (SES), a widely used variable in epidemiologic studies. Participants of the EPIPorto cohort (n = 2427) were georeferenced using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Google Earth (GE). One hundred were randomly selected and georeferenced using three additional tools: 1) cadastral maps (gold-standard); 2) Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and 3) Google Earth, single and in a batch. Mean PE and the proportion of misclassified individuals were compared. Google Earth showed lower PE than GIS, but 10% of the addresses were imprecisely positioned. Thirty-eight, 27, 16 and 14% of the participants were located in the wrong census tract by GIS, GPS, GE (batch) and GE (single), respectively (p<0.001). Misclassification according to SES was less frequent but still non-negligible −14.4, 8.1, 4.2 and 2% (p<0.001). The quality of georeferencing differed substantially between AG tools. GE seems to be the best tool, but only if prudently used. Epidemiologic studies using spatial data should start including information on the quality and accuracy of their georeferencing tools and spatial datasets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Geocoding residential addresses can be performed using three methods. A first method consists in using online geocoding services to obtain subjects’ coordinates or to create online maps with subjects’ residence locations [ 29 , 30 ]. These free services are available on the Internet and do not require specific expertise in geocoding [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The few studies that have previously explored the feasibility and the quality of geocoding residential addresses of an existing cohort in a European context were conducted on small populations (i.e. n = 30 [ 29 ], n = 100 [ 27 ] or n = 354 [ 13 ]). Moreover, these studies did not explore the accuracy of geocoding over various geographical areas (urban or rural) or time periods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEnvironmental exposure assessment based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and study participants’ residential proximity to environmental exposure sources relies on the positional accuracy of subjects’ residences to avoid misclassification bias. Our study compared the positional accuracy of two automatic geocoding methods to a manual reference method.MethodsWe geocoded 4,247 address records representing the residential history (1990–2008) of 1,685 women from the French national E3N cohort living in the Rhône-Alpes region. We compared two automatic geocoding methods, a free-online geocoding service (method A) and an in-house geocoder (method B), to a reference layer created by manually relocating addresses from method A (method R). For each automatic geocoding method, positional accuracy levels were compared according to the urban/rural status of addresses and time-periods (1990–2000, 2001–2008), using Chi Square tests. Kappa statistics were performed to assess agreement of positional accuracy of both methods A and B with the reference method, overall, by time-periods and by urban/rural status of addresses.ResultsRespectively 81.4% and 84.4% of addresses were geocoded to the exact address (65.1% and 61.4%) or to the street segment (16.3% and 23.0%) with methods A and B. In the reference layer, geocoding accuracy was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (74.4% vs. 10.5% addresses geocoded to the address or interpolated address level, p < 0.0001); no difference was observed according to the period of residence. Compared to the reference method, median positional errors were 0.0 m (IQR = 0.0-37.2 m) and 26.5 m (8.0-134.8 m), with positional errors <100 m for 82.5% and 71.3% of addresses, for method A and method B respectively. Positional agreement of method A and method B with method R was ‘substantial’ for both methods, with kappa coefficients of 0.60 and 0.61 for methods A and B, respectively.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the feasibility of geocoding residential addresses in epidemiological studies not initially recorded for environmental exposure assessment, for both recent addresses and residence locations more than 20 years ago. Accuracy of the two automatic geocoding methods was comparable. The in-house method (B) allowed a better control of the geocoding process and was less time consuming.

show abstract

“…A total of 300 handwritten addresses were randomly selected from the cohort database but stratified by municipality to ensure that each municipality was adequately represented in the subsample (200 selected in Temuco and 100 in Padre Las Casas). The number of addresses evaluated was limited to 300 for it was a feasible amount to process using the reference method, allowed adequate comparison, and because similar numbers have been used in previous studies 2,7,21 . Addresses were limited to urban areas within the municipalities using the same inclusion criteria as the larger study.…”

Section: Study Design and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of automatic geocoding tools: a study using addresses from hospital record files in Temuco, Chile

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic geocoding methods have become popular in recent years, facilitating the study of the association between health outcomes and the place of living. However, rather few studies have evaluated geocoding quality, with most of them being performed in the US and Europe. This article aims to compare the quality of three automatic online geocoding tools against a reference method. A subsample of 300 handwritten addresses from hospital records was geocoded using Bing, Google Earth, and Google Maps. Match rates were higher (> 80%) for Google Maps and Google Earth compared with Bing. However, the accuracy of the addresses was better for Bing with a larger proportion (> 70%) of addresses with positional errors below 20m. Generally, performance did not vary for each method for different socioeconomic status. Overall, the methods showed an acceptable, but heterogeneous performance, which may be a warning against the use of automatic methods without assessing quality in other municipalities, particularly in Chile and Latin America.

show abstract

Comparación de las aplicaciones de Google y Yahoo para la geocodificación de direcciones postales con fines epidemiológicos

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of

Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of

Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies

Quality of automatic geocoding tools: a study using addresses from hospital record files in Temuco, Chile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About