Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38698826›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Handling of outcome missing data dependent on measured or unmeasured background factors in micro-randomized trial: Simulation and application study.

Masahiro Kondo, Koji Oba

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Masahiro KondoBiostatistics Unit, Clinical and Translational Research Center, Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4647-3746
Koji ObaInterfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Micro-randomized trials (MRTs) enhance the effects of mHealth by determining the optimal components, timings, and frequency of interventions. Appropriate handling of missing values is crucial in clinical research; however, it remains insufficiently explored in the context of MRTs. Our study aimed to investigate appropriate methods for missing data in simple MRTs with uniform intervention randomization and no time-dependent covariates. We focused on outcome missing data depending on the participants' background factors. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the available data analysis (AD) and the multiple imputation in generalized estimating equations (GEE) and random effects model (RE) through simulations. The scenarios were examined based on the presence of unmeasured background factors and the presence of interaction effects. We conducted the regression and propensity score methods as multiple imputation. These missing data handling methods were also applied to actual MRT data. Results: Without the interaction effect, AD was biased for GEE, but there was almost no bias for RE. With the interaction effect, estimates were biased for both. For multiple imputation, regression methods estimated without bias when the imputation models were correct, but bias occurred when the models were incorrect. However, this bias was reduced by including the random effects in the imputation model. In the propensity score method, bias occurred even when the missing probability model was correct. Conclusions: Without the interaction effect, AD of RE was preferable. When employing GEE or anticipating interactions, we recommend the multiple imputation, especially with regression methods, including individual-level random effects.

Indexed as

Micro-randomized trialmissing datamobile appmobile healthmultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID38698826
PMCPMC11064756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.