ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Maximum likelihood estimation with missing outcomes: From simplicity to complexity.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile intervention for patients with psychosis following psychiatric hospitalization: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Psychological services · 2025Trial
- Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Trial
- Relationship Stress and Suicidal Ideation: A Daily Diary Study.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2026Article
- Progress of chronic kidney disease and associated predictors among patients under treatment at Gambi and Felege-Hiwote hospitals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- A Multimodal Risk Network Predicts Executive Function Trajectories in Non-demented Aging.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
- Public Awareness of Risks Associated with Alcohol Drinking in the US: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Kansas journal of medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Many clinical or prevention studies involve missing or censored outcomes. Maximum likelihood (ML) methods provide a conceptually straightforward approach to estimation when the outcome is partially missing. Methods of implementing ML methods range from the simple to the complex, depending on the type of data and the missing-data mechanism. Simple ML methods for ignorable missing-data mechanisms (when data are missing at random) include complete-case analysis, complete-case analysis with covariate adjustment, survival analysis with covariate adjustment, and analysis via propensity-to-be-missing scores. More complex ML methods for ignorable missing-data mechanisms include the analysis of longitudinal dropouts via a marginal model for continuous data or a conditional model for categorical data. A moderately complex ML method for categorical data with a saturated model and either ignorable or nonignorable missing-data mechanisms is a perfect fit analysis, an algebraic method involving closed-form estimates and variances. A complex and flexible ML method with categorical data and either ignorable or nonignorable missing-data mechanisms is the method of composite linear models, a matrix method requiring specialized software. Except for the method of composite linear models, which can involve challenging matrix specifications, the implementation of these ML methods ranges in difficulty from easy to moderate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.