ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2018
Substituting values for censored data from Texas, USA, reservoirs inflated and obscured trends in analyses commonly used for water quality target development.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
We calculated four median datasets (chlorophyll a, Chl a; total phosphorus, TP; and transparency) using multiple approaches to handling censored observations, including substituting fractions of the quantification limit (QL; dataset 1 = 1QL, dataset 2 = 0.5QL) and statistical methods for censored datasets (datasets 3-4) for approximately 100 Texas, USA reservoirs. Trend analyses of differences between dataset 1 and 3 medians indicated percent difference increased linearly above thresholds in percent censored data (%Cen). This relationship was extrapolated to estimate medians for site-parameter combinations with %Cen > 80%, which were combined with dataset 3 as dataset 4. Changepoint analysis of Chl a- and transparency-TP relationships indicated threshold differences up to 50% between datasets. Recursive analysis identified secondary thresholds in dataset 4. Threshold differences show that information introduced via substitution or missing due to limitations of statistical methods biased values, underestimated error, and inflated the strength of TP thresholds identified in datasets 1-3. Analysis of covariance identified differences in linear regression models relating transparency-TP between datasets 1, 2, and the more statistically robust datasets 3-4. Study findings identify high-risk scenarios for biased analytical outcomes when using substitution. These include high probability of median overestimation when %Cen > 50-60% for a single QL, or when %Cen is as low 16% for multiple QL's. Changepoint analysis was uniquely vulnerable to substitution effects when using medians from sites with %Cen > 50%. Linear regression analysis was less sensitive to substitution and missing data effects, but differences in model parameters for transparency cannot be discounted and could be magnified by log-transformation of the variables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29892793What 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.