ArticleResearch synthesis methods2022
On the bias of complete- and shifting-case meta-regressions with missing covariates.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology of children and adolescents undergoing surgery at Mexican public hospitals: a retrospective registry-based analysis from 2010 to 2022.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- On the bias of complete- and shifting-case meta-regressions with missing covariates.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missing covariates is a common issue when fitting meta-regression models. Standard practice for handling missing covariates tends to involve one of two approaches. In a complete-case analysis, effect sizes for which relevant covariates are missing are omitted from model estimation. Alternatively, researchers have employed the so-called "shifting units of analysis" wherein complete-case analyses are conducted on only certain subsets of relevant covariates. In this article, we clarify conditions under which these approaches generate unbiased estimates of regression coefficients. We find that unbiased estimates are possible when the probability of observing a covariate is completely independent of effect sizes. When that does not hold, regression coefficient estimates may be biased. We study the potential magnitude of that bias assuming a log-linear model of missingness and find that the bias can be substantial, as large as Cohen's d = 0.4-0.8 depending on the missingness mechanism.
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.