ArticlePloS one2025
Impute the missing data by combining retrieved dropouts and return to baseline method.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Effects of a Supervised Telerehabilitation-Based Exercise Program on Constipation Symptoms and Quality of Life in Adults With Chronic Constipation: A Randomized Controlled Trial".Neurogastroenterology and motility · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, various methods have been proposed to handle missing data in clinical trials. Some methods assume that the missing data are missing at random (MAR), which means that it is assumed that subjects who stopped treatment would still maintain the treatment effect. In many cases, however, researchers often assume that the missing data are missing not at random (MNAR) to conduct additional sensitivity analyses. Under the MNAR assumption, whether using some conservative imputation methods such as RTB (return to baseline) method, J2R (jump to reference) method, and CR (copy reference) method, or optimistic imputation methods like multiple imputation (MI) and its derivative RD (retrieved dropout) method, biases compared to the true treatment effect can occur in some scenarios. This paper aims to propose a method that can impute results while considering the occurrence of intercurrent events, thereby reducing the bias compared to the true treatment effect. This method combines the RD method with the RTB formula, reducing the biases and standard errors associated with using either method alone. Considering the differing treatment effects between RD subjects and non-RD subjects, our imputation results often align more closely with the true drug efficacy.
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.