ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
How to manage missing covariates in randomized controlled trials: a comparison of strategies.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen analyzing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) data, covariate adjustment is often employed to increase the precision of estimated treatment effects. Missing data in covariates, if not handled properly, can result in biased and inefficient estimates. However, the existing literature on handling missing covariate data is limited, and recommendations vary regarding a valid and efficient approach.
methodsTo help reconcile the seemingly inconsistent recommendations, we address two questions through methodological descriptions and simulated demonstrations. First, how should a multiple imputation (MI) model be specified for RCTs to best preserve the benefit of the randomization design? We consider three different approaches: MI with only baseline variables, "MI overall", and "MI by arm". Second, when and why will simple general strategies, such as grand mean imputation and the missing indicator method, perform as well as or better than MI in estimating treatment effects, and when and why do they fail?
results"MI by arm" has the potential to produce unbiased estimates for both the average and subgroup treatment effect (primary and secondary analyses) under the missing at random assumption. Strategies that capitalize on the randomization design, including MI with baseline variables, grand mean imputation, and the missing indicator method, may generate unbiased estimates for the average treatment effect (primary analysis) regardless of the missing data mechanism.
conclusionThis article clarifies the assumptions and mechanisms by which different missing data strategies accommodate missingness in covariates and reconcile recommendations that sometimes appear contradictory in the literature. Under MAR, "MI by arm" produces unbiased estimates for both the average treatment effect and subgroup treatment effects. Leveraging the randomization design, "baseline-only MI", grand mean imputation, and the missing indicator method produce unbiased estimates for the average treatment effect, but biased subgroup treatment effects, regardless of the missing data mechanism.
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.