ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Missingness in Eligibility Criteria for Target Trial Emulation in EHR With Survival Outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In certain settings, when conducting a randomized trial would be infeasible, electronic health records (EHR) can be used to emulate a target trial and estimate causal effects of an intervention. This process involves specifying the elements of a hypothetical trial protocol and applying these to the design of an observational study conducted with EHR data (or other observational data source). One element of target trial specification includes defining eligibility criteria. However, defining the eligible population with EHR can be complicated by missingness in eligibility-defining variables. Multiple imputation (MI) is one common approach to missingness in EHR data, but it is unclear whether imputation of eligibility criteria should occur before or after excluding ineligible individuals. Motivated by a target trial emulation of two treatments for advanced breast cancer, we explore this question when estimating the average causal effect under a target trial framework with survival outcomes. We illustrate how alternative MI strategies perform using simulated data and in a real-world analysis of oncology EHR data. We found that in most settings with high proportions of missingness in eligibility-defining variables, imputing missing data using a flexible imputation model, such as a random forest, prior to excluding ineligible individuals resulted in lower bias than complete case analysis or imputation after excluding ineligible individuals. Choices about how to handle practical challenges such as this in the application of target trial emulation to messy, real-world data sources can have substantial effects on causal parameter estimation and should be carefully considered to ensure that the results of observational studies are as rigorous as possible.
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.