Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32510791›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics2020

Imputation of missing covariate in randomized controlled trials with a continuous outcome: Scoping review and new results.

Mutamba T Kayembe, Shahab Jolani, Frans E S Tan, Gerard J P van Breukelen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Mutamba T KayembeDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, School CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6156-0365
Shahab JolaniDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, School CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Frans E S TanDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, School CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Gerard J P van BreukelenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, School CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we first review the literature on dealing with missing values on a covariate in randomized studies and summarize what has been done and what is lacking to date. We then investigate the situation with a continuous outcome and a missing binary covariate in more details through simulations, comparing the performance of multiple imputation (MI) with various simple alternative methods. This is finally extended to the case of time-to-event outcome. The simulations consider five different missingness scenarios: missing completely at random (MCAR), at random (MAR) with missingness depending only on the treatment, and missing not at random (MNAR) with missingness depending on the covariate itself (MNAR1), missingness depending on both the treatment and covariate (MNAR2), and missingness depending on the treatment, covariate and their interaction (MNAR3). Here, we distinguish two different cases: (1) when the covariate is measured before randomization (best practice), where only MCAR and MNAR1 are plausible, and (2) when it is measured after randomization but before treatment (which sometimes occurs in nonpharmaceutical research), where the other three missingness mechanisms can also occur. The proposed methods are compared based on the treatment effect estimate and its standard error. The simulation results suggest that the patterns of results are very similar for all missingness scenarios in case (1) and also in case (2) except for MNAR3. Furthermore, in each scenario for continuous outcome, there is at least one simple method that performs at least as well as MI, while for time-to-event outcome MI is best.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment Outcomemean imputationmissing covariatemissing-indicator methodmultiple imputationrandomized studiesreview

Identifiers

PMID32510791
PMCPMC7687108

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.