↓ Skip to main content

Outcome-sensitive multiple imputation: a simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Outcome-sensitive multiple imputation: a simulation study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0281-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Ian R. White, Matthew Sperrin, Iain Buchan

Abstract

Multiple imputation is frequently used to deal with missing data in healthcare research. Although it is known that the outcome should be included in the imputation model when imputing missing covariate values, it is not known whether it should be imputed. Similarly no clear recommendations exist on: the utility of incorporating a secondary outcome, if available, in the imputation model; the level of protection offered when data are missing not-at-random; the implications of the dataset size and missingness levels. We used realistic assumptions to generate thousands of datasets across a broad spectrum of contexts: three mechanisms of missingness (completely at random; at random; not at random); varying extents of missingness (20-80% missing data); and different sample sizes (1,000 or 10,000 cases). For each context we quantified the performance of a complete case analysis and seven multiple imputation methods which deleted cases with missing outcome before imputation, after imputation or not at all; included or did not include the outcome in the imputation models; and included or did not include a secondary outcome in the imputation models. Methods were compared on mean absolute error, bias, coverage and power over 1,000 datasets for each scenario. Overall, there was very little to separate multiple imputation methods which included the outcome in the imputation model. Even when missingness was quite extensive, all multiple imputation approaches performed well. Incorporating a secondary outcome, moderately correlated with the outcome of interest, made very little difference. The dataset size and the extent of missingness affected performance, as expected. Multiple imputation methods protected less well against missingness not at random, but did offer some protection. As long as the outcome is included in the imputation model, there are very small performance differences between the possible multiple imputation approaches: no outcome imputation, imputation or imputation and deletion. All informative covariates, even with very high levels of missingness, should be included in the multiple imputation model. Multiple imputation offers some protection against a simple missing not at random mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 134 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 23%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Master 15 11%
Other 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 20%
Mathematics 10 7%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 50 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,042,194
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#274
of 2,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,564
of 423,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.