ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Imputing longitudinal PROM data at the item and score level in clinical trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
backgroundMissing data in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can affect estimation accuracy and inferential validity, particularly under missing-at-random (MAR) mechanisms. Multiple imputation (MI) is commonly recommended, but the relative performance of item-level and score-level imputation for longitudinal PROM composite scores remains insufficiently understood.
methodsWe conducted a simulation study based on longitudinal clinical trial PROM data. Predictive mean matching (PMM) and random forest (RF) imputation were evaluated at both the item and score level under empirically calibrated MAR mechanisms. Simulation scenarios varied sample size, overall missingness, and the proportion of unit nonresponse. Performance was assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE), bias magnitude, relative efficiency compared with complete case analysis (CCA), conditional confidence interval coverage, and variance ratio estimates.
resultsRMSE decreased with increasing sample size and increased with higher proportions of missingness across all methods. Both PMM and RF generally outperformed CCA in terms of RMSE and relative efficiency, particularly under higher missingness. Differences between item-level and score-level imputation were generally modest, although score-level imputation tended to yield slightly lower RMSE and bias magnitudes under more severe missingness conditions. Conditional coverage remained close to nominal levels across most MI settings. Variance tended to be overestimated in some scenarios, although sensitivity analyses with larger numbers of imputations substantially reduced this effect. PMM showed comparatively stable performance across simulation settings.
conclusionsMultiple imputation methods generally outperformed complete case analysis for handling longitudinal PROM data under MAR. While score-level imputation sometimes showed slightly more favorable performance than item-level imputation when targeting composite score means, the magnitude of these differences was frequently small in practical terms. PMM provided stable performance across a wide range of settings and represents a reasonable default approach for many applied PROM analyses.
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.