ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing social disparities in child emotional and behavioral problems by hypothetical physical activity and screen time interventions.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Article
- Using directed acyclic graphs to determine whether multiple imputation or subsample-multiple imputation estimates of an exposure-outcome association are unbiased.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Intersectional approaches to cognitive aging: a practical guide to modeling heterogeneous trajectories with GLMM-trees.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Pitfalls of imputing using incomplete auxiliary variables.American journal of epidemiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auxiliary variables are used in multiple imputation (MI) to reduce bias and increase efficiency. These variables may often themselves be incomplete. We explored how missing data in auxiliary variables influenced estimates obtained from MI. We implemented a simulation study with 3 different missing data mechanisms for the outcome. We then examined the impact of increasing proportions of missing data and different missingness mechanisms for the auxiliary variable on bias of an unadjusted linear regression coefficient and the fraction of missing information. We illustrate our findings with an applied example in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. We found that where complete records analyses were biased, increasing proportions of missing data in auxiliary variables, under any missing data mechanism, reduced the ability of MI including the auxiliary variable to mitigate this bias. Where there was no bias in the complete records analysis, inclusion of a missing not at random auxiliary variable in MI introduced bias of potentially important magnitude (up to 17% of the effect size in our simulation). Careful consideration of the quantity and nature of missing data in auxiliary variables needs to be made when selecting them for use in MI models.
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.