Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39191658›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables.

Paul Madley-Dowd, Elinor Curnow, Rachael A Hughes, Rosie P Cornish, Kate Tilling, Jon Heron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pitfalls of imputing using incomplete auxiliary variables.American journal of epidemiology · 2025
    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.

Paul Madley-DowdCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2932-9486
Elinor CurnowMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3109-3647
Rachael A HughesMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0766-1410
Rosie P CornishMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2874-7646
Kate TillingMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1010-8926
Jon HeronCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6199-5644

Funding

The MRC and Wellcome 076467/Z/05/ZThe MRC and Wellcome 217065/Z/19/ZUK Medical Research Council MR/V020641/1UK Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol MC_UU_00032/2Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust and the Royal Society 215408/Z/19/ZWellcome Trust, the MRC and the Department for Education and Skills 092731/Z/10/ZWellcome Trust, the MRC and the Department for Education and Skills EOR/SBU/2002/121
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalBiasChildComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLinear ModelsLongitudinal StudiesALSPACauxiliary variablesbiasmissing datamultiple imputationsimulation

Identifiers

PMID39191658
PMCPMC12133271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.