Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25829972›Full record

ArticleThe EPMA journal2015

Reporting and handling of missing data in predictive research for prevalent undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

Katya L Masconi, Tandi E Matsha, Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui, Rajiv T Erasmus, Andre P Kengne

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The EPMA journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Katya L MasconiDivision of Chemical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) and University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa ; Non-Communicable Diseases Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, , Tygerberg, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa.
Tandi E MatshaDepartment of Biomedical Technology, Faculty of Health and Wellness Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa.
Justin B Echouffo-TcheuguiHubert Department of Public Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA USA ; Department of Medicine, MedStar Health System, Baltimore, MD USA.
Rajiv T ErasmusDivision of Chemical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) and University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa.
Andre P KengneNon-Communicable Diseases Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, , Tygerberg, 7505 Cape Town, South Africa ; Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missing values are common in health research and omitting participants with missing data often leads to loss of statistical power, biased estimates and, consequently, inaccurate inferences. We critically reviewed the challenges posed by missing data in medical research and approaches to address them. To achieve this more efficiently, these issues were analyzed and illustrated through a systematic review on the reporting of missing data and imputation methods (prediction of missing values through relationships within and between variables) undertaken in risk prediction studies of undiagnosed diabetes. Prevalent diabetes risk models were selected based on a recent comprehensive systematic review, supplemented by an updated search of English-language studies published between 1997 and 2014. Reporting of missing data has been limited in studies of prevalent diabetes prediction. Of the 48 articles identified, 62.5% (n = 30) did not report any information on missing data or handling techniques. In 21 (43.8%) studies, researchers opted out of imputation, completing case-wise deletion of participants missing any predictor values. Although imputation methods are encouraged to handle missing data and ensure the accuracy of inferences, this has seldom been the case in studies of diabetes risk prediction. Hence, we elaborated on the various types and patterns of missing data, the limitations of case-wise deletion and state-of the-art methods of imputations and their challenges. This review highlights the inexperience or disregard of investigators of the effect of missing data in risk prediction research. Formal guidelines may enhance the reporting and appropriate handling of missing data in scientific journals.

Indexed as

Diabetes mellitusGuidelinesModelingPatient StratificationPatternsPredictivePreventive and Personalized MedicineRiskScreening

Identifiers

PMID25829972
PMCPMC4380106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.