Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40705477›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Multiple Imputation of Missing Covariates When Using the Fine-Gray Model.

Edouard F Bonneville, Jan Beyersmann, Ruth H Keogh, Jonathan W Bartlett, Tim P Morris, Nicola Polverelli, Liesbeth C de Wreede, Hein Putter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Edouard F BonnevilleDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-4498
Jan BeyersmannInstitute of Statistics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-4611
Ruth H KeoghDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6504-3253
Jonathan W BartlettDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7117-0195
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5850-3610
Nicola PolverelliUnit of Bone Marrow Transplantation, Division of Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6297-9697
Liesbeth C de WreedeDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7667-9369
Hein PutterDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5395-1422

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BE 4500/4-1Leiden University Fund W222158-2-50Medical Research Council MR/T023953/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Fine-Gray model for the subdistribution hazard is commonly used for estimating associations between covariates and competing risks outcomes. When there are missing values in the covariates included in a given model, researchers may wish to multiply impute them. Assuming interest lies in estimating the risk of only one of the competing events, this paper develops a substantive-model-compatible multiple imputation approach that exploits the parallels between the Fine-Gray model and the standard (single-event) Cox model. In the presence of right-censoring, this involves first imputing the potential censoring times for those failing from competing events, and thereafter imputing the missing covariates by leveraging methodology previously developed for the Cox model in the setting without competing risks. In a simulation study, we compared the proposed approach to alternative methods, such as imputing compatibly with cause-specific Cox models. The proposed method performed well (in terms of estimation of both subdistribution log hazard ratios and cumulative incidences) when data were generated assuming proportional subdistribution hazards, and performed satisfactorily when this assumption was not satisfied. The gain in efficiency compared to a complete-case analysis was demonstrated in both the simulation study and in an applied data example on competing outcomes following an allogeneic stem cell transplantation. For individual-specific cumulative incidence estimation, assuming proportionality on the correct scale at the analysis phase appears to be more important than correctly specifying the imputation procedure used to impute the missing covariates.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansProportional Hazards Modelscompeting riskscumulative incidence functionFine–Gray modelmissing covariatesmultiple imputationsubdistribution hazard

Identifiers

PMID40705477
PMCPMC12288811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.