Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39893454›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2025

How much missing data is too much to impute for longitudinal health indicators? A preliminary guideline for the choice of the extent of missing proportion to impute with multiple imputation by chained equations.

K P Junaid, Tanvi Kiran, Madhu Gupta, Kamal Kishore, Sujata Siwatch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

K P JunaidDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6751-2236
Tanvi KiranDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India. tanvikiran3@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1728-142X
Madhu GuptaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3877-9956
Kamal KishoreDepartment of Biostatistics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8936-0843
Sujata SiwatchDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is a widely used approach for handling missing data. However, its robustness, especially for high missing proportions in health indicators, is under-researched. The study aimed to provide a preliminary guideline for the choice of the extent of missing proportion to impute longitudinal health-related data using the MICE method.

methodsThe study obtained complete data on five mortality-related health indicators of 100 countries (2015-2019) from the Global Health Observatory. Nine incomplete datasets with missing rates from 10 to 90% were generated and imputed using MICE. The robustness of MICE was assessed through three approaches: comparison of means using the Repeated Measures- Analysis of variance, estimation of evaluation metrics (Root mean square error, mean absolute deviation, Bias, and proportionate variance), and visual inspection of box plots of imputed and non-imputed data.

resultsThe Repeated Measures- Analysis of variance revealed significant differences between complete and imputed data, primarily in imputed data with over 50% missing proportions. Evaluation metrics exhibited 'high performance' for the dataset with a 50% missing proportion for various health indicators However, with missing proportions exceeding 70%, the majority of indicators demonstrated a 'low' performance level in terms of most evaluation metrics. The visual inspection of the box plot revealed severe variance shrinkage in imputed datasets with missing proportions beyond 70%, corroborating the findings from the evaluation metrics.

conclusionIt demonstrates high robustness up to 50% missing values, with marginal deviations from complete datasets. Caution is warranted for missing proportions between 50 and 70%, as moderate alterations are observed. Proportions beyond 70% lead to significant variance shrinkage and compromised data reliability, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging imputation limitations for practical decision-making.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsMortalityBiasData Interpretation, StatisticalGlobal HealthHumansLongitudinal StudiesLongitudinal dataMICEMissing proportionMortalityMultiple imputationRM-ANOVA

Identifiers

PMID39893454
PMCPMC11787761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.