Handling missing data in clinical research
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, ISSN: 0895-4356, Vol: 151, Page: 185-188
2022
- 108Citations
- 186Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations108
- Citation Indexes108
- 108
- CrossRef46
- Captures186
- Readers186
- 186
Article Description
Because missing data are present in almost every study, it is important to handle missing data properly. First of all, the missing data mechanism should be considered. Missing data can be either completely at random (MCAR), at random (MAR), or not at random (MNAR). When missing data are MCAR, a complete case analysis can be valid. Also when missing data are MAR, in some situations a complete case analysis leads to valid results. However, in most situations, missing data imputation should be used. Regarding imputation methods, it is highly advised to use multiple imputations because multiple imputations lead to valid estimates including the uncertainty about the imputed values. When missing data are MNAR, also multiple imputations do not lead to valid results. A complication hereby is that it not possible to distinguish whether missing data are MAR or MNAR. Finally, it should be realized that preventing to have missing data is always better than the treatment of missing data.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622002189; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.016; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139722296&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36150546; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435622002189; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.016
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know