ArticleBiometrics2024
Adjusting for incomplete baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a cross-world imputation framework.
Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials: From general theory to practical insights.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Review
- The non-linear relationship between atherogenic index of plasma and stroke: a study among middle-aged and elderly Chinese adults with depression.Lipids in health and disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In randomized controlled trials, adjusting for baseline covariates is commonly used to improve the precision of treatment effect estimation. However, covariates often have missing values. Recently, Zhao and Ding studied two simple strategies, the single imputation method and missingness-indicator method (MIM), to handle missing covariates and showed that both methods can provide an efficiency gain compared to not adjusting for covariates. To better understand and compare these two strategies, we propose and investigate a novel theoretical imputation framework termed cross-world imputation (CWI). This framework includes both single imputation and MIM as special cases, facilitating the comparison of their efficiency. Through the lens of CWI, we show that MIM implicitly searches for the optimal CWI values and thus achieves optimal efficiency. We also derive conditions under which the single imputation method, by searching for the optimal single imputation values, can achieve the same efficiency as the MIM. We illustrate our findings through simulation studies and a real data analysis based on the Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of our findings.
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.