ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Summarizing the extent of visit irregularity in longitudinal data.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of major depressive disorder on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal cohort study using UK Biobank primary care records.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Estimation of marginal structural models under irregular visits and unmeasured confounder: calibrated inverse probability weights.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Assessing longitudinal housing status using Electronic Health Record data: a comparison of natural language processing, structured data, and patient-reported history.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- The risk of developing motor complications with Levodopa immediate versus dual release upon treatment initiation in Parkinson's disease.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational longitudinal data often feature irregular, informative visit times. We propose descriptive measures to quantify the extent of irregularity to select an appropriate analytic outcome approach.
methodsWe divided the study period into bins and calculated the mean proportions of individuals with 0, 1, and > 1 visits per bin. Perfect repeated measures features everyone with 1 visit per bin. Missingness leads to individuals with 0 visits per bin while irregularity leads to individuals with > 1 visit per bin. We applied these methods to: 1) the TARGet Kids! study, which invites participation at ages 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24 months, and 2) the childhood-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (cSLE) study which recommended at least 1 visit every 6 months.
resultsThe mean proportions of 0 and > 1 visits per bin were above 0.67 and below 0.03 respectively in the TARGet Kids! study, suggesting repeated measures with missingness. For the cSLE study, bin widths of 6 months yielded mean proportions of 1 and > 1 visits per bin of 0.39, suggesting irregular visits.
conclusionsOur methods describe the extent of irregularity and help distinguish between protocol-driven visits and irregular visits. This is an important step in choosing an analytic strategy for the outcome.
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.