ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Missing data considerations for patient reported outcome measures in randomized controlled trials.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are widely used in clinical trials to capture patients’ perspectives on their health and treatment. However, missing data remains a major challenge and can lead to biased or incomplete results. Understanding how different methods for handling missing data perform under realistic conditions is essential for decision-making.
methodsWe conducted a simulation study informed by a review of 87 PRO instruments, modeling both simple and complex questionnaire structures in a hypothetical randomized trial. Under both the missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR) assumptions, four commonly used approaches were evaluated: multiple imputation (MI) at the item level, MI at the total score level, item mean, and mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM). To make the study more realistic, we also ran simulations using actual trial data from the COU-AA-302 study, focusing on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire.
resultsThe simulation results supported the use of the “Half Rule” under MAR. When the number of missing items did not exceed half of the total items, item mean imputation showed reasonable estimation with low root mean squared error, high power, and low type 1 error. MI on item scores consistently performed well, but inflated type 1 error under certain MNAR scenarios. As the missing visit rate increased, the advantage of item level imputation diminished, i.e., RMSE approached and eventually exceeded that of MI on the total score. In the trial data analysis, given the high missing visit rate in the collected FACT-P data, MI on total score level performed not worse than MI on item score level.
conclusionsNo single method is optimal for all situations. Item-level imputation performs well when missing data are minimal and occur at random, but it becomes less reliable when data is missing not at random. For complex PROs or studies with many missing visits, imputing at the total score level with the “Half Rule” offers a practical alternative. Strategies should match the missingness pattern, supported by simulations and sensitivity analyses to ensure robust results.
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.