Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341708›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2019

A comparison of different methods to handle missing data in the context of propensity score analysis.

Jungyeon Choi, Olaf M Dekkers, Saskia le Cessie

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing 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

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Clinical Outcomes of 5000 IU Heparin Versus Activated Clotting Time-Guided Heparinization During Noncardiac Arterial Procedures: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Outcomes for people experiencing homelessness with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments in Canada, compared with housed patients.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article

15 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

3 authors.

Jungyeon ChoiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, C7-P, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. J.Choi@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1914-3488
Olaf M DekkersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, C7-P, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Saskia le CessieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, C7-P, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Propensity score analysis is a popular method to control for confounding in observational studies. A challenge in propensity methods is missing values in confounders. Several strategies for handling missing values exist, but guidance in choosing the best method is needed. In this simulation study, we compared four strategies of handling missing covariate values in propensity matching and propensity weighting. These methods include: complete case analysis, missing indicator method, multiple imputation and combining multiple imputation and missing indicator method. Concurrently, we aimed to provide guidance in choosing the optimal strategy. Simulated scenarios varied regarding missing mechanism, presence of effect modification or unmeasured confounding. Additionally, we demonstrated how missingness graphs help clarifying the missing structure. When no effect modification existed, complete case analysis yielded valid causal treatment effects even when data were missing not at random. In some situations, complete case analysis was also able to partially correct for unmeasured confounding. Multiple imputation worked well if the data were missing (completely) at random, and if the imputation model was correctly specified. In the presence of effect modification, more complex imputation models than default options of commonly used statistical software were required. Multiple imputation may fail when data are missing not at random. Here, combining multiple imputation and the missing indicator method reduced the bias as the missing indicator variable can be a proxy for unobserved confounding. The optimal way to handle missing values in covariates of propensity score models depends on the missing data structure and the presence of effect modification. When effect modification is present, default settings of imputation methods may yield biased results even if data are missing at random.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreCohort StudiesComputer SimulationConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalStatistics as TopicEffect modificationMissing dataMissing indicatorMissingness graphMultiple imputationPropensity score analysis

Identifiers

PMID30341708
PMCPMC6325992

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.