Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31090043›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2019

Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data in Environmental Epidemiology Research.

Prince Addo Allotey, Ofer Harel

Abstract readEvaluation StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors.

Prince Addo AlloteyDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut, 215 Glenbrook Rd Unit, Storrs, CT, 4120, USA.
Ofer HarelDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut, 215 Glenbrook Rd Unit, Storrs, CT, 4120, USA. ofer.harel@uconn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIncomplete data are a common problem in statistical analysis of environmental epidemiological research. However, many researchers still ignore this complication. We evaluate the performance of two commonly used multiple imputation (MI) methods (fully conditional specification and multivariate normal) for handling missing data and compare them to complete case analysis (CCA) method. We further discuss issues that arise when these methods are being used. RECENT

findingsMI is a simulation-based approach to deal with incomplete data. In general, MI will perform better then ad hoc techniques such as CCA. MI is an approach which replaces the missing data with plausible values and allows for additional uncertainty due to the missing information caused by the incomplete data. To illustrate this, we use data of 944 women from the Collaborative Perinatal Project and compare estimates between these methods. The goal is to examine if each of two outcomes, birth-weight and spontaneous abortion, in the data set are associated with mothers' smoking status during pregnancy adjusting for baseline covariates in the model. Results indicate that MI is better suited for handling incomplete data and led to a significant improvement in parameter estimates compared to CCA. The two MI methods produced similar point estimates, but slightly different standard errors.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyData Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmental ExposureEpidemiologic Research DesignEpidemiologic StudiesAdultComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaternal ExposurePregnancyPregnancy OutcomeSmokingComplete case analysisComplete dataMissing dataMultiple imputationSpontaneous abortionTraditional statistical methods

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.