ArticleDigital health
Handling of outcome missing data dependent on measured or unmeasured background factors in micro-randomized trial: Simulation and application study.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Missing data in microrandomized trials: Challenges and opportunities.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.