ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Implications of Missing Data Mechanisms in Randomized Controlled Trials: Current Practices and Suggestions Utilizing the ACTIVE Study.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMissingness in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) might mask or inflate effects with consequences for translating results confidently. The current study presents three steps to establishing confidence in results in light of missing data using an RCT examining the preventive potential of computerized cognitive training for the onset of dementia.
methodsParticipants (n = 2832) consented to complete a computerized cognitive training study and ranged in age from 65 to 94 years (M = 73.33; SD = 5.74). Variables related to baseline demographic, physical, cognitive, and psychological functioning were examined as predictors of missingness to identify auxiliary variables. Secondary data analysis was conducted using data from the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study (ACTIVE). Confidence in the sustained impact of the intervention group was examined using two types of MNAR models (i.e., selection and pattern mixture modeling frameworks).
resultsUsing auxiliary variables, there were slight changes in the pattern of results of the cognitive training intervention, suggesting that missing data was contributing to slight increases and decreases in model estimates, but not creating major changes in the interpretation of the trial. The analysis under MNAR models did not suggest any systemic bias in the study outcomes due to missing data but highlighted potential differences in those with complete data compared to those with incomplete data.
conclusionsThe current study demonstrates how to expand examination of missingness and triangulate multiple methods for investigating bias under MAR and MNAR. It is recommended that the checklist for reporting for randomized controlled trials (i.e., CONSORT-ROUTINE) be amended to reflect specificity for requirements necessary for missingness.
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.