Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32677726›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2020

A general method for elicitation, imputation, and sensitivity analysis for incomplete repeated binary data.

Daniel Tompsett, Stephen Sutton, Shaun R Seaman, Ian R White

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing Alternative Imputation Strategies for Infrequently Missing Items on Multi-item Scales.Communications in statistics. Case studies, data analysis and applications · 2022
    Article
  6. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel TompsettGreat Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6761-6270
Stephen SuttonInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1610-0404
Shaun R SeamanMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3726-5937
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6718-7661
University of Cambridge · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M025012Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M025012/1Medical Research Council MC_U105260558Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/10Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council U105260558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We develop and demonstrate methods to perform sensitivity analyses to assess sensitivity to plausible departures from missing at random in incomplete repeated binary outcome data. We use multiple imputation in the not at random fully conditional specification framework, which includes one or more sensitivity parameters (SPs) for each incomplete variable. The use of an online elicitation questionnaire is demonstrated to obtain expert opinion on the SPs, and highest prior density regions are used alongside opinion pooling methods to display credible regions for SPs. We demonstrate that substantive conclusions can be far more sensitive to departures from the missing at random assumption (MAR) when control and intervention nonresponders depart from MAR differently, and show that the correlation of arm specific SPs in expert opinion is particularly important. We illustrate these methods on the iQuit in Practice smoking cessation trial, which compared the impact of a tailored text messaging system versus standard care on smoking cessation. We show that conclusions about the effect of intervention on smoking cessation outcomes at 8 week and 6 months are broadly insensitive to departures from MAR, with conclusions significantly affected only when the differences in behavior between the nonresponders in the two trial arms is larger than expert opinion judges to be realistic.

Indexed as

Research DesignSmoking CessationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSurveys and Questionnairesexpert elicitationMARMNARmultiple imputationsmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID32677726
PMCPMC7612109
OpenAlexW3043139790

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.