ArticleResearch square2026
The Influence of Missing Data Handling Methods on CES-D Analysis in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS).
Article in Research square, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most evaluations of missing data analyses rely on literature reviews or comparisons of hypothesized methods applied to a given dataset, yet the real-world impact of different strategies remains unknown. Using the widely analyzed CHARLS dataset, we reviewed missing data handling methods in 219 studies using the CES-D-10, and compared the three most prevalent procedures: complete-case analysis (CCA), impute zero (IZ), and multiple imputation (MI). Although CES-D-10 items were not missing completely at random, 90% of publications used CCA, resulting in lower mean CES-D-10 scores but higher depression prevalence, especially among adults aged 75 and older. The IZ CES-D-10 score constructed in the harmonized CHARLS dataset systematically underestimated both prevalence and mean scores, distorting age trajectories and attenuating sex differences in later life. Many CHARLS-based depression studies are therefore likely affected by systematic bias due to suboptimal treatment of missing CES-D-10 items, particularly those studies using the harmonized dataset. Moreover, because the IZ approach has similarly been used to construct CES-D scores in other major aging studies (e.g., HRS, ELSA, and KLoSA), this bias may extend beyond CHARLS and undermine the validity of depression findings across multiple international cohorts.
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.