Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27430559›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

How to deal with missing longitudinal data in cost of illness analysis in Alzheimer's disease-suggestions from the GERAS observational study.

Mark Belger, Josep Maria Haro, Catherine Reed, Michael Happich, Kristin Kahle-Wrobleski, Josep Maria Argimon, Giuseppe Bruno, Richard Dodel, Roy W Jones, Bruno Vellas and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The worldwide costs of dementia in 2019.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Mark BelgerLilly Research Centre, Eli Lilly and Company Limited, Erl Wood Manor, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham Surrey, GU20 6PH, UK. belger_mark@lilly.com.
Josep Maria HaroParc Santari Sant Joan de Deu, CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Catherine ReedLilly Research Centre, Eli Lilly and Company Limited, Erl Wood Manor, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham Surrey, GU20 6PH, UK.
Michael HappichLilly Research Centre, Eli Lilly and Company Limited, Erl Wood Manor, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham Surrey, GU20 6PH, UK.
Kristin Kahle-WrobleskiEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Josep Maria ArgimonAgencia Qualitat I Avaluacio Sanitaries, Barcelona, Spain.
Giuseppe BrunoClinica della Memoria, Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Richard DodelDepartment of Neurology, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
Roy W JonesRICE (The Research Institute for the Care of Older People), Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK.
Bruno VellasGerontopole, Toulouse University Hospital, INSERM 1027, Toulouse, France.
Anders WimoDivision of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissing data are a common problem in prospective studies with a long follow-up, and the volume, pattern and reasons for missing data may be relevant when estimating the cost of illness. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different methods for dealing with missing longitudinal cost data and for costing caregiver time on total societal costs in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

methodsGERAS is an 18-month observational study of costs associated with AD. Total societal costs included patient health and social care costs, and caregiver health and informal care costs. Missing data were classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Simulation datasets were generated from baseline data with 10-40 % missing total cost data for each missing data mechanism. Datasets were also simulated to reflect the missing cost data pattern at 18 months using MAR and MNAR assumptions. Naïve and multiple imputation (MI) methods were applied to each dataset and results compared with complete GERAS 18-month cost data. Opportunity and replacement cost approaches were used for caregiver time, which was costed with and without supervision included and with time for working caregivers only being costed.

resultsTotal costs were available for 99.4 % of 1497 patients at baseline. For MCAR datasets, naïve methods performed as well as MI methods. For MAR, MI methods performed better than naïve methods. All imputation approaches were poor for MNAR data. For all approaches, percentage bias increased with missing data volume. For datasets reflecting 18-month patterns, a combination of imputation methods provided more accurate cost estimates (e.g. bias: -1 % vs -6 % for single MI method), although different approaches to costing caregiver time had a greater impact on estimated costs (29-43 % increase over base case estimate).

conclusionsMethods used to impute missing cost data in AD will impact on accuracy of cost estimates although varying approaches to costing informal caregiver time has the greatest impact on total costs. Tailoring imputation methods to the reason for missing data will further our understanding of the best analytical approach for studies involving cost outcomes.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCaregiversCost-Benefit AnalysisData AccuracyHealth Care CostsHumansIndependent LivingLongitudinal StudiesMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodObservational Studies as TopicAlzheimer’s diseaseCost of illnessMissing data analysisMissing data mechanismsMultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID27430559
PMCPMC4950752

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.