Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30170561›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Heckman imputation models for binary or continuous MNAR outcomes and MAR predictors.

Jacques-Emmanuel Galimard, Sylvie Chevret, Emmanuel Curis, Matthieu Resche-Rigon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Complement inhibitors for age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Jacques-Emmanuel GalimardINSERM U1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), ECSTRA team, Service de Biostatistique et Information Médicale, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, 1 avenue Claude Vellefaux, Paris, F-75010, France. jacques-emmanuel.galimard@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-9102-4427
Sylvie ChevretINSERM U1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), ECSTRA team, Service de Biostatistique et Information Médicale, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, 1 avenue Claude Vellefaux, Paris, F-75010, France.
Emmanuel CurisINSERM UMR-S 1144, Équipe 1, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, F-75013, France.
Matthieu Resche-RigonINSERM U1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), ECSTRA team, Service de Biostatistique et Information Médicale, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, 1 avenue Claude Vellefaux, Paris, F-75010, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) requires specifying a suitable conditional imputation model for each incomplete variable and then iteratively imputes the missing values. In the presence of missing not at random (MNAR) outcomes, valid statistical inference often requires joint models for missing observations and their indicators of missingness. In this study, we derived an imputation model for missing binary data with MNAR mechanism from Heckman's model using a one-step maximum likelihood estimator. We applied this approach to improve a previously developed approach for MNAR continuous outcomes using Heckman's model and a two-step estimator. These models allow us to use a MICE process and can thus also handle missing at random (MAR) predictors in the same MICE process.

methodsWe simulated 1000 datasets of 500 cases. We generated the following missing data mechanisms on 30% of the outcomes: MAR mechanism, weak MNAR mechanism, and strong MNAR mechanism. We then resimulated the first three cases and added an additional 30% of MAR data on a predictor, resulting in 50% of complete cases. We evaluated and compared the performance of the developed approach to that of a complete case approach and classical Heckman's model estimates.

resultsWith MNAR outcomes, only methods using Heckman's model were unbiased, and with a MAR predictor, the developed imputation approach outperformed all the other approaches.

conclusionsIn the presence of MAR predictors, we proposed a simple approach to address MNAR binary or continuous outcomes under a Heckman assumption in a MICE procedure.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalLikelihood FunctionsModels, TheoreticalData AccuracyEpidemiologyHumansMonte Carlo MethodOutcome Assessment, Health CareHeckman’s modelMissing dataMissing not at random (MNAR)Multiple imputation by chained equation (MICE)Sample selection method

Identifiers

PMID30170561
PMCPMC6119269

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.