Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26809812›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2016

Multiple imputation of multiple multi-item scales when a full imputation model is infeasible.

Catrin O Plumpton, Tim Morris, Dyfrig A Hughes, Ian R White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Family-Based Mental Health Promotion for Somali Bantu and Bhutanese Refugees: Feasibility and Acceptability Trial.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2020
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Missing data and imputation in the international studies following the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cumulative Trauma and Trauma Symptoms: A Three-Way Interaction.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Catrin O PlumptonCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK. c.o.plumpton@bangor.ac.uk.
Tim MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH, UK. tim.morris@ucl.ac.uk.
Dyfrig A HughesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK. d.a.hughes@bangor.ac.uk.
Ian R WhiteMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. ian@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800792Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council U105260558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissing data in a large scale survey presents major challenges. We focus on performing multiple imputation by chained equations when data contain multiple incomplete multi-item scales. Recent authors have proposed imputing such data at the level of the individual item, but this can lead to infeasibly large imputation models.

methodsWe use data gathered from a large multinational survey, where analysis uses separate logistic regression models in each of nine country-specific data sets. In these data, applying multiple imputation by chained equations to the individual scale items is computationally infeasible. We propose an adaptation of multiple imputation by chained equations which imputes the individual scale items but reduces the number of variables in the imputation models by replacing most scale items with scale summary scores. We evaluate the feasibility of the proposed approach and compare it with a complete case analysis. We perform a simulation study to compare the proposed method with alternative approaches: we do this in a simplified setting to allow comparison with the full imputation model.

resultsFor the case study, the proposed approach reduces the size of the prediction models from 134 predictors to a maximum of 72 and makes multiple imputation by chained equations computationally feasible. Distributions of imputed data are seen to be consistent with observed data. Results from the regression analysis with multiple imputation are similar to, but more precise than, results for complete case analysis; for the same regression models a 39% reduction in the standard error is observed. The simulation shows that our proposed method can perform comparably against the alternatives.

conclusionsBy substantially reducing imputation model sizes, our adaptation makes multiple imputation feasible for large scale survey data with multiple multi-item scales. For the data considered, analysis of the multiply imputed data shows greater power and efficiency than complete case analysis. The adaptation of multiple imputation makes better use of available data and can yield substantively different results from simpler techniques.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAntihypertensive AgentsComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalEmploymentEuropeFemaleHumansHypertensionLogistic ModelsMaleMarital StatusMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPatient ComplianceAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID26809812
PMCPMC4727289

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.