ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015
Evaluation of a weighting approach for performing sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extended-release naltrexone reduces alcohol consumption among released prisoners with HIV disease as they transition to the community.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2017Trial
- Improving radiomics-based models for esophagogastric variceal bleeding risk prediction in cirrhotic patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: Use and interpretation of the trimmed means estimator.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Assessing Alternative Imputation Strategies for Infrequently Missing Items on Multi-item Scales.Communications in statistics. Case studies, data analysis and applications · 2022Article
- Accounting for not-at-random missingness through imputation stacking.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Strategies for assessing the impact of loss to follow-up on estimates of neurodevelopmental impairment in a very preterm cohort at 2 years of age.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Model checking in multiple imputation: an overview and case study.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2017Article
- Stigma against People Living with HIV/AIDS in China: Does the Route of Infection Matter?PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple imputation (MI) is a well-recognised statistical technique for handling missing data. As usually implemented in standard statistical software, MI assumes that data are 'Missing at random' (MAR); an assumption that in many settings is implausible. It is not possible to distinguish whether data are MAR or 'Missing not at random' (MNAR) using the observed data, so it is desirable to discover the impact of departures from the MAR assumption on the MI results by conducting sensitivity analyses. A weighting approach based on a selection model has been proposed for performing MNAR analyses to assess the robustness of results obtained under standard MI to departures from MAR.
methodsIn this article, we use simulation to evaluate the weighting approach as a method for exploring possible departures from MAR, with missingness in a single variable, where the parameters of interest are the marginal mean (and probability) of a partially observed outcome variable and a measure of association between the outcome and a fully observed exposure. The simulation studies compare the weighting-based MNAR estimates for various numbers of imputations in small and large samples, for moderate to large magnitudes of departure from MAR, where the degree of departure from MAR was assumed known. Further, we evaluated a proposed graphical method, which uses the dataset with missing data, for obtaining a plausible range of values for the parameter that quantifies the magnitude of departure from MAR.
resultsOur simulation studies confirm that the weighting approach outperformed the MAR approach, but it still suffered from bias. In particular, our findings demonstrate that the weighting approach provides biased parameter estimates, even when a large number of imputations is performed. In the examples presented, the graphical approach for selecting a range of values for the possible departures from MAR did not capture the true parameter value of departure used in generating the data.
conclusionsOverall, the weighting approach is not recommended for sensitivity analyses following MI, and further research is required to develop more appropriate methods to perform such sensitivity analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.