ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2023
The M-Value: A Simple Sensitivity Analysis for Bias Due to Missing Data in Treatment Effect Estimates.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit on Physical and Mental health-Results from the Atlanta Paycheck Plus Experiment.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Trial
- Ibrutinib plus venetoclax for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: an editorial on the phase 3 SYMPATICO trial.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Mediators of psychotic-like experiences in community youths after trauma: positive sense of agency and post-traumatic stress symptoms.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Risk prediction of second primary malignancies in patients with primary gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms: a population-based study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Association between various blood glucose variability-related indicators during early ICU admission and 28-day mortality in non-diabetic patients with sepsis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Simple graphical rules for assessing selection bias in general-population and selected-sample treatment effects.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Regional differences in the incidence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in South Carolina.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The Study of the Epidemiology of Pediatric Hypertension Registry (SUPERHERO): rationale and methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Complete-case analyses can be biased if missing data are not missing completely at random. We propose simple sensitivity analyses that apply to complete-case estimates of treatment effects; these analyses use only simple summary data and obviate specifying the precise mechanism of missingness and making distributional assumptions. Bias arises when treatment effects differ between retained and nonretained participants or, among retained participants, the estimate is biased because conditioning on retention has induced a noncausal path between the treatment and outcome. We thus bound the overall treatment effect on the difference scale by specifying: 1) the unobserved treatment effect among nonretained participants; and 2) the strengths of association that unobserved variables have with the exposure and with the outcome among retained participants ("induced confounding associations"). Working with the former sensitivity parameter subsumes certain existing methods of worst-case imputation while also accommodating less-conservative assumptions (e.g., that the treatment is not detrimental on average even among nonretained participants). As an analog to the E-value for confounding, we propose the M-value, which represents, for a specified treatment effect among nonretained participants, the strength of induced confounding associations required to reduce the treatment effect to the null or to any other value. These methods could help characterize the robustness of complete-case analyses to potential bias due to missing 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.