Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673410›Full record

Observational studyRMD open2019

Imputing missing data of function and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis registers: what is the best technique?

Denis Mongin, Kim Lauper, Carl Turesson, Merete Lund Hetland, Eirik Klami Kristianslund, Tore K Kvien, Maria Jose Santos, Karel Pavelka, Florenzo Iannone, Axel Finckh and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in RMD open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. The influence of peri-operative depressive symptoms on medium-term spine surgery outcome: a prospective study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

11 authors.

Denis MonginDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4801-8395
Kim LauperDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-9009
Carl TuressonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Merete Lund HetlandCentre for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.
Eirik Klami KristianslundDepartment of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tore K KvienDepartment of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Maria Jose SantosDepartment of Rheumatology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7946-1365
Karel PavelkaInstitute of Rheumatology and Clinic of Rheumatology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Florenzo IannoneDepartment of Emergency and Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, GISEA, University Hospital of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Axel FinckhDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Delphine Sophie CourvoisierDivision of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare several methods of missing data imputation for function (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and for disease activity (Disease Activity Score-28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods: One thousand RA patients from observational cohort studies with complete data for function and disease activity at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months were selected to conduct a simulation study. Values were deleted at random or following a predicted attrition bias. Three types of imputation were performed: (1) methods imputing forward in time (last observation carried forward; linear forward extrapolation); (2) methods considering data both forward and backward in time (nearest available observation-NAO; linear extrapolation; polynomial extrapolation); and (3) methods using multi-individual models (linear mixed effects cubic regression-LME3; multiple imputation by chained equation-MICE). The performance of each estimation method was assessed using the difference between the mean outcome value, the remission and low disease activity rates after imputation of the missing values and the true value. Results: When imputing missing baseline values, all methods underestimated equally the true value, but LME3 and MICE correctly estimated remission and low disease activity rates. When imputing missing follow-up values at 6, 12, or 24 months, NAO provided the least biassed estimate of the mean disease activity and corresponding remission rate. These results were not affected by the presence of attrition bias. Conclusion: When imputing function and disease activity in large registers of active RA patients, researchers can consider the use of a simple method such as NAO for missing follow-up data, and the use of mixed-effects regression or multiple imputation for baseline data.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAlgorithmsArthritis, RheumatoidBiasCohort StudiesComputer SimulationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLinear ModelsMaleRemission InductionResearch DesignSeverity of Illness IndexDAS28disease activityepidemiologyoutcomes researchrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID31673410
PMCPMC6802981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.