ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2019
A guide to missing data for the pediatric nephrologist.
Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological issues of the electronic health records' use in the context of epidemiological investigations, in light of missing data: a review of the recent literature.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Survival and transplant outcomes among young children requiring kidney replacement therapy.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Article
- A clinical predictive model of renal injury in children with congenital solitary functioning kidney.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- A clinical predictive model of chronic kidney disease in children with posterior urethral valves.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Article
- Handling missing data in research.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missing data is an important and common source of bias in clinical research. Readers should be alert to and consider the impact of missing data when reading studies. Beyond preventing missing data in the first place, through good study design and conduct, there are different strategies available to handle data containing missing observations. Complete case analysis is often biased unless data are missing completely at random. Better methods of handling missing data include multiple imputation and models using likelihood-based estimation. With advancing computing power and modern statistical software, these methods are within the reach of clinician-researchers under guidance of a biostatistician. As clinicians reading papers, we need to continue to update our understanding of statistical methods, so that we understand the limitations of these techniques and can critically interpret literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29536258What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.