Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29028922›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2018

Methods for handling longitudinal outcome processes truncated by dropout and death.

Lan Wen, Graciela Muniz Terrera, Shaun R Seaman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Controlling for selective dropout in longitudinal dementia data: Application to the SveDem registry.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lan WenMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, IPH Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
Graciela Muniz TerreraCentre for Dementia Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Kennedy Tower, UK.
Shaun R SeamanMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, IPH Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/10Medical Research Council U105260558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cohort data are often incomplete because some subjects drop out of the study, and inverse probability weighting (IPW), multiple imputation (MI), and linear increments (LI) are methods that deal with such missing data. In cohort studies of ageing, missing data can arise from dropout or death. Methods that do not distinguish between these reasons for missingness typically provide inference about a hypothetical cohort where no one can die (immortal cohort). It has been suggested that inference about the cohort composed of those who are still alive at any time point (partly conditional inference) may be more meaningful. MI, LI, and IPW can all be adapted to provide partly conditional inference. In this article, we clarify and compare the assumptions required by these MI, LI, and IPW methods for partly conditional inference on continuous outcomes. We also propose augmented IPW estimators for making partly conditional inference. These are more efficient than IPW estimators and more robust to model misspecification. Our simulation studies show that the methods give approximately unbiased estimates of partly conditional estimands when their assumptions are met, but may be biased otherwise. We illustrate the application of the missing data methods using data from the 'Origins of Variance in the Old-old' Twin study.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalModels, StatisticalResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchBiostatisticsHumans

Identifiers

PMID29028922
PMCPMC5971107

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.