Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32228491›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Multiple imputation by predictive mean matching in cluster-randomized trials.

Brittney E Bailey, Rebecca Andridge, Abigail B Shoben

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Impact of underlying kidney disease on the outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with heart failure.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Utilization Prior to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Social Determinants of Health.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  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. 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

3 authors.

Brittney E BaileyDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Amherst College, PO Box 5000, AC #2239, Amherst, 01002, MA, USA. bebailey@amherst.edu.
Rebecca AndridgeCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 43210, OH, USA.
Abigail B ShobenCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 43210, OH, USA.

Funding

Breast Cancer Survivors Cardiovascular Risks: Treatment and Behavioral InfluencesR01CA186720 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KIECOLT-GLASER, JANICE · 2014 to 2018
$4.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA186720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandom effects regression imputation has been recommended for multiple imputation (MI) in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) because it is congenial to analyses that use random effects regression. This method relies heavily on model assumptions and may not be robust to misspecification of the imputation model. MI by predictive mean matching (PMM) is a semiparametric alternative, but current software for multilevel data relies on imputation models that ignore clustering or use fixed effects for clusters. When used directly for imputation, these two models result in underestimation (ignoring clustering) or overestimation (fixed effects for clusters) of variance estimates.

methodsWe develop MI procedures based on PMM that leverage these opposing estimated biases in the variance estimates in one of three ways: weighting the distance metric (PMM-dist), weighting the average of the final imputed values from two PMM procedures (PMM-avg), or performing a weighted draw from the final imputed values from the two PMM procedures (PMM-draw). We use Monte-Carlo simulations to evaluate our newly proposed methods relative to established MI procedures, focusing on estimation of treatment group means and their variances after MI.

resultsThe proposed PMM procedures reduce the bias in the MI variance estimator relative to established methods when the imputation model is correctly specified, and are generally more robust to model misspecification than even the random effects imputation methods.

conclusionsThe PMM-draw procedure in particular is a promising method for multiply imputing missing data from CRTs that can be readily implemented in existing statistical software.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSoftwareCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMonte Carlo MethodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCluster-randomized trialMissing dataMultiple imputationPredictive mean matching

Identifiers

PMID32228491
PMCPMC7106802

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.