| Title |
A guide to missing data for the pediatric nephrologist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Nephrology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00467-018-3932-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas G. Larkins, Jonathan C. Craig, Armando Teixeira-Pinto |
| Abstract |
Missing data is an important and common source of bias in clinical research. Readers should be alert to and consider the impact of missing data when reading studies. Beyond preventing missing data in the first place, through good study design and conduct, there are different strategies available to handle data containing missing observations. Complete case analysis is often biased unless data are missing completely at random. Better methods of handling missing data include multiple imputation and models using likelihood-based estimation. With advancing computing power and modern statistical software, these methods are within the reach of clinician-researchers under guidance of a biostatistician. As clinicians reading papers, we need to continue to update our understanding of statistical methods, so that we understand the limitations of these techniques and can critically interpret literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,727,940
of 23,327,904 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Nephrology
#777
of 3,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,154
of 334,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Nephrology
#20
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,327,904 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,620 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 334,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.