Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23113185›Full record

ArticleIranian journal of public health2012

Assessment of Internal Validity of Prognostic Models through Bootstrapping and Multiple Imputation of Missing Data.

Mr Baneshi, A Talei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mr BaneshiResearch Center for Modeling in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
A Talei

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic models have clinical appeal to aid therapeutic decision making. Two main practical challenges in development of such models are assessment of validity of models and imputation of missing data. In this study, importance of imputation of missing data and application of bootstrap technique in development, simplification, and assessment of internal validity of a prognostic model is highlighted.

methodsOverall, 310 breast cancer patients were recruited. Missing data were imputed 10 times. Then to deal with sensitivity of the model due to small changes in the data (internal validity), 100 bootstrap samples were drawn from each of 10 imputed data sets leading to 1000 samples. A Cox regression model was fitted to each of 1000 samples. Only variables retained in more than 50% of samples were used in development of final model.

resultsFour variables retained significant in more than 50% (i.e. 500 samples) of bootstrap samples; tumour size (91%), tumour grade (64%), history of benign breast disease (77%), and age at diagnosis (59%). Tumour size was the strongest predictor with inclusion frequency exceeding 90%. Number of deliveries was correlated with age at diagnosis (r=0.35, P<0.001). These two variables together retained significant in more than 90% of samples.

conclusionWe addressed two important methodological issues using a cohort of breast cancer patients. The algorithm combines multiple imputation of missing data and bootstrapping and has the potential to be applied in all kind of regression modelling exercises so as to address internal validity of models.

Indexed as

BootstrapBreast neoplasmInternal validityMissing dataMultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID23113185
PMCPMC3468987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.