↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 1,994)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0650-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baptiste Leurent, Manuel Gomes, Rita Faria, Stephen Morris, Richard Grieve, James R. Carpenter

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of randomised controlled trials are a key source of information for health care decision makers. Missing data are, however, a common issue that can seriously undermine their validity. A major concern is that the chance of data being missing may be directly linked to the unobserved value itself [missing not at random (MNAR)]. For example, patients with poorer health may be less likely to complete quality-of-life questionnaires. However, the extent to which this occurs cannot be ascertained from the data at hand. Guidelines recommend conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of conclusions to plausible MNAR assumptions, but this is rarely done in practice, possibly because of a lack of practical guidance. This tutorial aims to address this by presenting an accessible framework and practical guidance for conducting sensitivity analysis for MNAR data in trial-based CEA. We review some of the methods for conducting sensitivity analysis, but focus on one particularly accessible approach, where the data are multiply-imputed and then modified to reflect plausible MNAR scenarios. We illustrate the implementation of this approach on a weight-loss trial, providing the software code. We then explore further issues around its use in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 22%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 33 30%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#958,927
of 25,278,281 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#27
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,113
of 333,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,278,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 333,401 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 99% of its contemporaries.