ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Multiple imputation approaches for handling incomplete three-level data with time-varying cluster-memberships.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Imputation for Longitudinal Data: A Tutorial.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Multiple imputation methods for missing multilevel ordinal outcomes.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Multiple imputation approaches for handling incomplete three-level data with time-varying cluster-memberships.Statistics in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-level data arising from repeated measures on individuals clustered within higher-level units are common in medical research. A complexity arises when individuals change clusters over time, resulting in a cross-classified data structure. Missing values in these studies are commonly handled via multiple imputation (MI). If the three-level, cross-classified structure is modeled in the analysis, it also needs to be accommodated in the imputation model to ensure valid results. While incomplete three-level data can be handled using various approaches within MI, the performance of these in the cross-classified data setting remains unclear. We conducted simulations under a range of scenarios to compare these approaches in the context of an acute-effects cross-classified random effects substantive model, which models the time-varying cluster membership via simple additive random effects. The simulation study was based on a case study in a longitudinal cohort of students clustered within schools. We evaluated methods that ignore the time-varying cluster memberships by taking the first or most common cluster for each individual; pragmatic extensions of single- and two-level MI approaches within the joint modeling (JM) and the fully conditional specification (FCS) frameworks, using dummy indicators (DI) and/or imputing repeated measures in wide format to account for the cross-classified structure; and a three-level FCS MI approach developed specifically for cross-classified data. Results indicated that the FCS implementations performed well in terms of bias and precision while JM approaches performed poorly. Under both frameworks approaches using the DI extension should be used with caution in the presence of sparse data.
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.