Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37525436›Full record

Observational studyStatistics in medicine2023

Accounting for nonmonotone missing data using inverse probability weighting.

Rachael K Ross, Stephen R Cole, Jessie K Edwards, Daniel Westreich, Julie L Daniels, Jeffrey S A Stringer

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachael K RossDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2049-6918
Stephen R ColeDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Jessie K EdwardsDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-335X
Daniel WestreichDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Julie L DanielsDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Jeffrey S A StringerDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Improved analysis of experiments and observational studies in HIVR01AI157758 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephen R Cole, Jessie Edwards · 2020 to 2026
$5.0M
Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI157758NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inverse probability weighting can be used to correct for missing data. New estimators for the weights in the nonmonotone setting were introduced in 2018. These estimators are the unconstrained maximum likelihood estimator (UMLE) and the constrained Bayesian estimator (CBE), an alternative if UMLE fails to converge. In this work we describe and illustrate these estimators, and examine performance in simulation and in an applied example estimating the effect of anemia on spontaneous preterm birth in the Zambia Preterm Birth Prevention Study. We compare performance with multiple imputation (MI) and focus on the setting of an observational study where inverse probability of treatment weights are used to address confounding. In simulation, weighting was less statistically efficient at the smallest sample size and lowest exposure prevalence examined (n = 1500, 15% respectively) but in other scenarios statistical performance of weighting and MI was similar. Weighting had improved computational efficiency taking, on average, 0.4 and 0.05 times the time for MI in R and SAS, respectively. UMLE was easy to implement in commonly used software and convergence failure occurred just twice in >200 000 simulated cohorts making implementation of CBE unnecessary. In conclusion, weighting is an alternative to MI for nonmonotone missingness, though MI performed as well as or better in terms of bias and statistical efficiency. Weighting's superior computational efficiency may be preferred with large sample sizes or when using resampling algorithms. As validity of weighting and MI rely on correct specification of different models, both approaches could be implemented to check agreement of results.

Indexed as

Premature BirthBayes TheoremComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornModels, StatisticalProbabilityimputationmissing datanonmonotonesimulationweighting

Identifiers

PMID37525436
PMCPMC10528196
OpenAlexW4385441969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.