Objective: To explore the biases and confoundings in Spatial Epidemiological studies.
Methods: Possible bias and confounding and their impact on study results in Spatial Epidemiology were analyzed in given examples.
Results: In Spatial Epidemiology, biases related to ascertainment/numerator/denominator induced by the choice of the disease induction/latency period and mis-specification of exposure-disease model, exposure inaccuracy, spatial dependency, significance tests etc. were involved, as well as to ecological, socio-economic confoundings factors.
Conclusion: The sources of bias in 'Spatial Epidemiology' were both numerous and complex, that might be overestimated or underestimated on the study results. Hence, careful interpretation of such studies was needed.