Table 1.
Cluster | County amount | Cases | Expected | Annual case/100000 | RR | LLR | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total without adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster* | 52 | 5769 | 3637 | 6.3 | 2.18 | 850.27 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 1 | 1 | 128 | 56 | 9.1 | 2.28 | 33.47 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 2 | 16 | 1480 | 1259 | 4.7 | 1.20 | 20.74 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 3 | 1 | 161 | 111 | 5.8 | 1.46 | 10.08 | <0.01 |
Total adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster | 78 | 2815 | 2146 | 2.0 | 1.90 | 211.69 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 1 | 1 | 54 | 21 | 3.8 | 2.57 | 17.89 | <0.01 |
Urban Without adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster | 23 | 1791 | 982 | 9.1 | 2.31 | 358.99 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 1 | 1 | 61 | 25 | 12.3 | 2.49 | 18.97 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 2 | 1 | 38 | 13 | 14.2 | 2.86 | 15.11 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 3 | 1 | 80 | 44 | 9.1 | 1.84 | 12.10 | <0.01 |
Urban adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster | 23 | 624 | 383 | 3.2 | 1.94 | 83.92 | <0.01 |
Secondary cluster 1 | 2 | 79 | 42 | 3.6 | 1.91 | 13.10 | <0.01 |
Rural without adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster | 65 | 4488 | 3150 | 5.0 | 2.32 | 549.81 | <0.01 |
Rural adjusted for age | |||||||
Most likely cluster | 65 | 1547 | 1151 | 1.7 | 1.95 | 131.13 | <0.01 |
Note *: “Most likely cluster” was defined when the maximum log likelihood ratio (LLR) with statistical significance was detected by Monte Carlo simulation in spatial analysis; the other LLR values with statistical significance were identified as “Secondary cluster”. The relative risk (RR) was the ratio of the mortality inside a cluster area to the mortality outside a cluster area.