Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32787781›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Evaluation of approaches for multiple imputation of three-level data.

Rushani Wijesuriya, Margarita Moreno-Betancur, John B Carlin, Katherine J Lee

Open access · goldAbstract 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  17. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rushani WijesuriyaClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia. rushani.wijesuriya@mcri.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-4065
Margarita Moreno-BetancurClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
John B CarlinClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Katherine J LeeClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Australian Government. project number DE190101326National Health and Medical Research Council ID#1127984National Health and Medical Research Council ID#APP1166023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree-level data arising from repeated measures on individuals who are clustered within larger units are common in health research studies. Missing data are prominent in such longitudinal studies and multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for handling missing data. Extensions of joint modelling and fully conditional specification MI approaches based on multilevel models have been developed for imputing three-level data. Alternatively, it is possible to extend single- and two-level MI methods to impute three-level data using dummy indicators and/or by analysing repeated measures in wide format. However, most implementations, evaluations and applications of these approaches focus on the context of incomplete two-level data. It is currently unclear which approach is preferable for imputing three-level data.

methodsIn this study, we investigated the performance of various MI methods for imputing three-level incomplete data when the target analysis model is a three-level random effects model with a random intercept for each level. The MI methods were evaluated via simulations and illustrated using empirical data, based on a case study from the Childhood to Adolescence Transition Study, a longitudinal cohort collecting repeated measures on students who were clustered within schools. In our simulations we considered a number of different scenarios covering a range of different missing data mechanisms, missing data proportions and strengths of level-2 and level-3 intra-cluster correlations.

resultsWe found that all of the approaches considered produced valid inferences about both the regression coefficient corresponding to the exposure of interest and the variance components under the various scenarios within the simulation study. In the case study, all approaches led to similar results.

conclusionResearchers may use extensions to the single- and two-level approaches, or the three-level approaches, to adequately handle incomplete three-level data. The two-level MI approaches with dummy indicator extension or the MI approaches based on three-level models will be required in certain circumstances such as when there are longitudinal data measured at irregular time intervals. However, the single- and two-level approaches with the DI extension should be used with caution as the DI approach has been shown to produce biased parameter estimates in certain scenarios.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdolescentChildComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLongitudinal StudiesMultilevel AnalysisFCSIncomplete multilevel dataJoint modellingLinear mixed modelMultilevel multiple imputationMultiple imputationThree-level data

Identifiers

PMID32787781
PMCPMC7422505
OpenAlexW3048951091

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.