ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Handling of missing component information for common composite score outcomes used in axial spondyloarthritis research when complete-case analysis is unbiased.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In search of a window of opportunity in axial spondyloarthritis: treatment outcomes across different symptom durations.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Observational
- Non-component clinical feature-based machine learning for disease activity risk stratification in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a multi-center retrospective validation study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational data on composite scores often comes with missing component information. When a complete-case (CC) analysis of composite scores is unbiased, preferable approaches of dealing with missing component information should also be unbiased and provide a more precise estimate. We assessed the performance of several methods compared to CC analysis in estimating the means of common composite scores used in axial spondyloarthritis research.
methodsIndividual mean imputation (IMI), the modified formula method (MF), overall mean imputation (OMI), and multiple imputation of missing component values (MI) were assessed either analytically or by means of simulations from available data collected across Europe. Their performance in estimating the means of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) in cases where component information was set missing completely at random was compared to the CC approach based on bias, variance, and coverage.
resultsLike the MF method, IMI uses a modified formula for observations with missing components resulting in modified composite scores. In the case of an unbiased CC approach, these two methods yielded representative samples of the distribution arising from a mixture of the original and modified composite scores, which, however, could not be considered the same as the distribution of the original score. The IMI and MF method are, thus, intrinsically biased. OMI provided an unbiased mean but displayed a complex dependence structure among observations that, if not accounted for, resulted in severe coverage issues. MI improved precision compared to CC and gave unbiased means and proper coverage as long as the extent of missingness was not too large.
conclusionsMI of missing component values was the only method found successful in retaining CC's unbiasedness and in providing increased precision for estimating the means of BASDAI, BASFI, and ASDAS-CRP. However, since MI is susceptible to incorrect implementation and its performance may become questionable with increasing missingness, we consider the implementation of an error-free CC approach a valid and valuable option.
trial registrationNot applicable as study uses data from patient registries.
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.