ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2026
A comparison of missing data approaches for linear regression with missing not at random outcome and predictors.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While most methods for missing not at random (MNAR) data in regression models address MNAR outcomes assuming fully observed predictors, real-world observational health and longitudinal studies often violate this assumption. This paper compares several approaches for handling MNAR data in linear regression when missingness depends on both partially observed outcomes and predictors. Through extensive simulations, we evaluate complete-case analysis, multiple imputation assuming missing at random, maximum likelihood estimation via the Heckman selection model, uncertainty intervals, multiple imputation under the Heckman selection model, not-at-random fully conditional specification, imputation stacking, and random indicator imputation. None of the methods consistently produced unbiased estimates or nominal coverage across all scenarios. However, not-at-random fully conditional specification was straightforward to implement and yielded coverage close to the nominal level in most scenarios, provided that the sensitivity parameters were specified near their true values. Our results highlight the importance of sensitivity analyses exploring various full-data models and careful parameter specification when addressing MNAR in both outcomes and predictors. We illustrate such sensitivity analyses using Betula study data on the relationship between longitudinal memory change and grey matter volume in aging. The association remained significant across most considered MNAR scenarios, reinforcing existing evidence for this relationship.
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.