Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30328123›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Population-calibrated multiple imputation for a binary/categorical covariate in categorical regression models.

Tra My Pham, James R Carpenter, Tim P Morris, Angela M Wood, Irene Petersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Tra My PhamDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0528-6303
James R CarpenterLondon Hub for Trials Methodology Research, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Tim P MorrisLondon Hub for Trials Methodology Research, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5850-3610
Angela M WoodDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Irene PetersenDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0037-7524

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194Cancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of Health 05/40/04Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10314Medical Research Council G0701619Medical Research Council G0900701Medical Research Council G0902393Medical Research Council MC_PC_13041Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/K014811/1Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple imputation (MI) has become popular for analyses with missing data in medical research. The standard implementation of MI is based on the assumption of data being missing at random (MAR). However, for missing data generated by missing not at random mechanisms, MI performed assuming MAR might not be satisfactory. For an incomplete variable in a given data set, its corresponding population marginal distribution might also be available in an external data source. We show how this information can be readily utilised in the imputation model to calibrate inference to the population by incorporating an appropriately calculated offset termed the "calibrated-δ adjustment." We describe the derivation of this offset from the population distribution of the incomplete variable and show how, in applications, it can be used to closely (and often exactly) match the post-imputation distribution to the population level. Through analytic and simulation studies, we show that our proposed calibrated-δ adjustment MI method can give the same inference as standard MI when data are MAR, and can produce more accurate inference under two general missing not at random missingness mechanisms. The method is used to impute missing ethnicity data in a type 2 diabetes prevalence case study using UK primary care electronic health records, where it results in scientifically relevant changes in inference for non-White ethnic groups compared with standard MI. Calibrated-δ adjustment MI represents a pragmatic approach for utilising available population-level information in a sensitivity analysis to explore potential departures from the MAR assumption.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalLogistic ModelsModels, StatisticalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Electronic Health RecordsEthnicityHumansPrevalenceResearch Designelectronic health recordsmissing datamissing not at randommultiple imputationsensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID30328123
PMCPMC6492126

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.