ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
The Fitting Optimization Path Analysis on Scale Missing Data: Based on the 507 Patients of Poststroke Depression Measured by SDS.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the optimal fitting path of missing data of the Scale to make the fitting data close to the real situation of patients' data.
methodsBased on the complete data set of the SDS of 507 patients with stroke, the data simulation sets of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), Missing at Random (MAR), and Missing Not at Random (MNAR) were constructed by R software, respectively, with missing rates of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40% under three missing mechanisms. Mean substitution (MS), random forest regression (RFR), and predictive mean matching (PMM) were used to fit the data. Root mean square error (RMSE), the width of 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) were used to evaluate the fitting effect and determine the optimal fitting path.
resultswhen dealing with the problem of missing data in scales, the optimal fitting path is ① under the MCAR deletion mechanism, when the deletion proportion is less than 20%, the MS method is the most convenient; when the missing ratio is greater than 20%, RFR algorithm is the best fitting method. ② Under the Mar mechanism, when the deletion ratio is less than 35%, the MS method is the most convenient. When the deletion ratio is greater than 35%, RFR has a better correlation. ③ Under the mechanism of MNAR, RFR is the best data fitting method, especially when the missing proportion is greater than 30%. In reality, when the deletion ratio is small, the complete case deletion method is the most commonly used, but the RFR algorithm can greatly expand the application scope of samples and save the cost of clinical research when the deletion ratio is less than 30%. The best way to deal with data missing should be based on the missing mechanism and proportion of actual data, and choose the best method between the statistical analysis ability of the research team, the effectiveness of the method, and the understanding of readers.
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.