Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26464305›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Evaluation of a weighting approach for performing sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation.

Panteha Hayati Rezvan, Ian R White, Katherine J Lee, John B Carlin, Julie A Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing Alternative Imputation Strategies for Infrequently Missing Items on Multi-item Scales.Communications in statistics. Case studies, data analysis and applications · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Panteha Hayati RezvanCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. phayati@student.unimelb.edu.au.
Ian R WhiteMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. ian.white@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.
Katherine J LeeClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. katherine.lee@mcri.edu.au.
John B CarlinCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. john.carlin@mcri.edu.au.
Julie A SimpsonCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. julieas@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council U105260558
6 · The paper itself

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

Data Interpretation, StatisticalModels, StatisticalRegression AnalysisAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID26464305
PMCPMC4604630

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.