ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Multiple imputation for missing values in ordinal variables from cancer registry data when performing Cox proportional hazards regression.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundScientists working with cancer registry data are often confronted with large proportions of missing values in ordinal variables, such as tumor stage, grading or the general health status (ECOG-PS scored 0 to 5). Despite the long-standing issue, research on handling missing ordinal cancer registry data remains sparse.
methodsA simulation study was conducted using complete lung cancer cases (2019–2022) from the North Rhine-Westphalia Cancer Registry. Missing values in ECOG-PS were generated with varying missingness mechanisms (MCAR, MAR, MNAR), missingness proportions (10% to 50%) and sample sizes (N = 500, N = 1,000, N = 5,000). The data were then replaced using MICE with ordinal logistic regression (POLR), multinomial regression (POLYREG), predictive mean matching (PMM), random forests (RF), and the joint model (JM). The performance parameters bias, MSE, width of the 95%CI and coverage were assessed.
resultsSevere bias, high MSE, wide 95%CI, and poor coverage were found in scenarios with sample sizes of N = 500 and 1,000 and 30% or more missing data with low prevalence of ECOG-PS = 4. MICE with POLYREG maintained low bias across all scenarios with N = 5,000, while MICE with RF and PMM performed well with up to 30%-50% missing data. MICE with POLR and the JM yielded low bias with up to 10%-20% missing data. Compared to complete case analysis, MI did not offer a systematic advantage in terms of bias or MSE compared to the MI methods evaluated.
conclusionSample size and ordinal category distribution impact missing data handling in registry studies. Severe bias might be introduced when sample sizes are smaller and prevalence of categories is low, indicating finite-sample effects rather than systematic bias of the imputation methods. Among the MI methods applied, MICE with POLYREG performed best, however, further research is needed for time-to-event analyses and multivariate missingness patterns.
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.