ArticleRMD open2025
Challenge of missing data in observational studies: investigating cross-sectional imputation methods for assessing disease activity in axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to compare various methods for imputing disease activity in longitudinally collected observational data of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
methodsWe conducted a simulation study on data from 8583 axSpA patients from ten European registries. Disease activity was assessed by the Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the corresponding low disease activity (LDA; ASDAS<2.1) state at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We focused on cross-sectional methods which impute missing values of an individual at a particular time point based on the available information from other individuals at that time point. We applied nine single and five multiple imputation methods, covering mean, regression and hot deck methods. The performance of each imputation method was evaluated via relative bias and coverage of 95% confidence intervals for the mean ASDAS and the derived proportion of patients in LDA.
resultsHot deck imputation methods outperformed mean and regression methods, particularly when assessing LDA. Multiple imputation procedures provided better coverage than the corresponding single imputation ones. However, none of the evaluated methods produced unbiased estimates with adequate coverage across all time points, with performance for missing baseline data being worse than for missing follow-up data. Predictive mean and weighted predictive mean hot deck imputation procedures consistently provided results with low bias.
conclusionsThis study contributes to the available methods for imputing disease activity in observational research. Hot deck imputation using predictive mean matching exhibited the highest robustness and is thus our suggested approach.
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.