ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Assessment of score- and Rasch-based methods for group comparison of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes with intermittent missing data (informative and non-informative).
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the quality of reporting of simulation studies about methods for the analysis of complex longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Sustained quality of life improvement after intracoronary injection of autologous bone marrow cells in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: results from the BONAMI trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Trial
- Resilience across time: Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Brief Resilience Scale in French university students.PloS one · 2026Article
- Finalization and Validation of Questionnaire and Algorithm of SPUR, a New Adherence Profiling Tool.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Maternal and child health after injuries: a two-year follow-up of a nationally representative sample.Public health · 2019Article
- Article
- Power and sample size determination for the group comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the Rasch model: impact of a misspecification of the parameters.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
- RespOnse Shift ALgorithm in Item response theory (ROSALI) for response shift detection with missing data in longitudinal patient-reported outcome studies.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2015Article
- Introduction to special section: quantitative methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2015Article
- Comparison of three longitudinal analysis models for the health-related quality of life in oncology: a simulation study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to identify the most adequate strategy for group comparison of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes in the presence of possibly informative intermittent missing data. Models coming from classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) were compared.
methodsTwo groups of patients' responses to dichotomous items with three times of assessment were simulated. Different cases were considered: presence or absence of a group effect and/or a time effect, a total of 100 or 200 patients, 4 or 7 items and two different values for the correlation coefficient of the latent trait between two consecutive times (0.4 or 0.9). Cases including informative and non-informative intermittent missing data were compared at different rates (15, 30 %). These simulated data were analyzed with CTT using score and mixed model (SM) and with IRT using longitudinal Rasch mixed model (LRM). The type I error, the power and the bias of the group effect estimations were compared between the two methods.
resultsThis study showed that LRM performs better than SM. When the rate of missing data rose to 30 %, estimations were biased with SM mainly for informative missing data. Otherwise, LRM and SM methods were comparable concerning biases. However, regardless of the rate of intermittent missing data, power of LRM was higher compared to power of SM.
conclusionsIn conclusion, LRM should be favored when the rate of missing data is higher than 15 %. For other cases, SM and LRM provide similar results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24563110What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.