Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29165557›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2018

Inverse-Probability-Weighted Estimation for Monotone and Nonmonotone Missing Data.

BaoLuo Sun, Neil J Perkins, Stephen R Cole, Ofer Harel, Emily M Mitchell, Enrique F Schisterman, Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revisiting representativeness.International journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

7 authors.

BaoLuo SunDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Neil J PerkinsDivision of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
Stephen R ColeDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ofer HarelDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Emily M MitchellCenters for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Enrique F SchistermanDivision of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland.
Eric J Tchetgen TchetgenDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Next Generation Missing Data Methods in HIV ResearchR01AI127271 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
ROC Curve MethodologyZIAHD008761 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI SCHISTERMAN, ENRIQUE F. · 2009 to 2021
$2.1M
Dealing with missing data in HIV prevention trialsK01MH087219 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI HAREL, OFER · 2010 to 2014
$889k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI127271NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH087219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missing data is a common occurrence in epidemiologic research. In this paper, 3 data sets with induced missing values from the Collaborative Perinatal Project, a multisite US study conducted from 1959 to 1974, are provided as examples of prototypical epidemiologic studies with missing data. Our goal was to estimate the association of maternal smoking behavior with spontaneous abortion while adjusting for numerous confounders. At the same time, we did not necessarily wish to evaluate the joint distribution among potentially unobserved covariates, which is seldom the subject of substantive scientific interest. The inverse probability weighting (IPW) approach preserves the semiparametric structure of the underlying model of substantive interest and clearly separates the model of substantive interest from the model used to account for the missing data. However, IPW often will not result in valid inference if the missing-data pattern is nonmonotone, even if the data are missing at random. We describe a recently proposed approach to modeling nonmonotone missing-data mechanisms under missingness at random to use in constructing the weights in IPW complete-case estimation, and we illustrate the approach using 3 data sets described in a companion article (Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):568-575).

Indexed as

Data AccuracyData Interpretation, StatisticalProbabilityFemaleHumansPregnancyStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29165557
PMCPMC5860553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.