| Title |
Impact of Missing Data for Body Mass Index in an Epidemiologic Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maternal and Child Health Journal, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10995-016-1948-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hilda Razzaghi, Sarah C. Tinker, Amy H. Herring, Penelope P. Howards, D. Kim Waller, Candice Y. Johnson, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study |
| Abstract |
Objective To assess the potential impact of missing data on body mass index (BMI) on the association between prepregnancy obesity and specific birth defects. Methods Data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) were analyzed. We assessed the factors associated with missing BMI data among mothers of infants without birth defects. Four analytic methods were then used to assess the impact of missing BMI data on the association between maternal prepregnancy obesity and three birth defects; spina bifida, gastroschisis, and cleft lip with/without cleft palate. The analytic methods were: (1) complete case analysis; (2) assignment of missing values to either obese or normal BMI; (3) multiple imputation; and (4) probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Logistic regression was used to estimate crude and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Results Of NBDPS control mothers 4.6 % were missing BMI data, and most of the missing values were attributable to missing height (~90 %). Missing BMI data was associated with birth outside of the US (aOR 8.6; 95 % CI 5.5, 13.4), interview in Spanish (aOR 2.4; 95 % CI 1.8, 3.2), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR 2.0; 95 % CI 1.2, 3.4), and <12 years education (aOR 2.3; 95 % CI 1.7, 3.1). Overall the results of the multiple imputation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were similar to the complete case analysis. Conclusions Although in some scenarios missing BMI data can bias the magnitude of association, it does not appear likely to have impacted conclusions from a traditional complete case analysis of these data. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,942,395
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#839
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,197
of 304,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#28
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 304,165 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 51% of its contemporaries.