Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29165572›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2018

Principled Approaches to Missing Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 126 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

126 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 242 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19: cohort studies in Denmark and Sweden.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Pitfalls of imputing using incomplete auxiliary variables.American journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

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.
Eric J Tchetgen TchetgenDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
BaoLuo SunDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Emily M MitchellAgency 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.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · USHarvard University · USAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USUniversity of Connecticut · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

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
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH087219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Principled methods with which to appropriately analyze missing data have long existed; however, broad implementation of these methods remains challenging. In this and 2 companion papers (Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):576-584 and Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):585-591), we discuss issues pertaining to missing data in the epidemiologic literature. We provide details regarding missing-data mechanisms and nomenclature and encourage the conduct of principled analyses through a detailed comparison of multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting. Data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project, a multisite US study conducted from 1959 to 1974, are used to create a masked data-analytical challenge with missing data induced by known mechanisms. We illustrate the deleterious effects of missing data with naive methods and show how principled methods can sometimes mitigate such effects. For example, when data were missing at random, naive methods showed a spurious protective effect of smoking on the risk of spontaneous abortion (odds ratio (OR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19, 0.93), while implementation of principled methods multiple imputation (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.77) or augmented inverse probability weighting (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.97) provided estimates closer to the "true" full-data effect (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.64). We call for greater acknowledgement of and attention to missing data and for the broad use of principled missing-data methods in epidemiologic research.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyData Interpretation, StatisticalEpidemiologic Research DesignEpidemiologic StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29165572
PMCPMC5860376
OpenAlexW2769693452

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.