ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
A Multiple Imputation Workflow for Handling Missing Covariate Data in Pharmacometrics Modeling.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Covariate missingness is a prevalent issue in pharmacometrics modeling. Incorrect handling of missing covariates can lead to biased parameter estimates, adversely affecting clinical practice and drug development dosing decisions. Single imputation is usually favored by pharmacometricians for its simplicity, but it ignores the uncertainty about imputed values, potentially leading to biased estimates and standard errors. Multiple imputation, in contrast, generates multiple plausible values from a predictive distribution, addressing this uncertainty and thus is a preferable approach over single imputation to handle covariate missingness. Yet, its application in pharmacometrics remains limited due to perceived complexity. To address this, we developed a multiple imputation workflow specifically tailored for pharmacometricians, encouraging wider adoption of this more reliable method in pharmacometrics modeling. We compared single imputation and multiple imputation in estimating covariate effects using a publicly available dataset on warfarin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. A one-compartment population pharmacokinetic model with baseline body weight as the only covariate was used to describe the warfarin pharmacokinetics. We simulated five scenarios in which 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, 50%, and 75% of the subjects had their body weight missing under a missing at random mechanism conditioned on age and sex. We confirm that multiple imputation better reflects uncertainty estimates than single imputation, regardless of the degree of missingness. This confirms multiple imputation as a superior alternative to single imputation for handling missing covariate data in pharmacometrics.
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.