Evidence mapPaperPMID 34090494Full record

ArticleTrials2021

A framework for handling missing accelerometer outcome data in trials.

Mia S Tackney, Derek G Cook, Daniel Stahl, Khalida Ismail, Elizabeth Williamson, James Carpenter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mia S TackneyDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Mia.Tackney@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3868-0550
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.
Khalida IsmailDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Elizabeth WilliamsonDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
James CarpenterDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC UU 12023/21 and MC UU 12023/29Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MR/S01442X/1Medical Research Council MR/S01442X/1 and MR/R013489/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerometers and other wearable devices are increasingly being used in clinical trials to provide an objective measure of the impact of an intervention on physical activity. Missing data are ubiquitous in this setting, typically for one of two reasons: patients may not wear the device as per protocol, and/or the device may fail to collect data (e.g. flat battery, water damage). However, it is not always possible to distinguish whether the participant stopped wearing the device, or if the participant is wearing the device but staying still. Further, a lack of consensus in the literature on how to aggregate the data before analysis (hourly, daily, weekly) leads to a lack of consensus in how to define a "missing" outcome. Different trials have adopted different definitions (ranging from having insufficient step counts in a day, through to missing a certain number of days in a week). We propose an analysis framework that uses wear time to define missingness on the epoch and day level, and propose a multiple imputation approach, at the day level, which treats partially observed daily step counts as right censored. This flexible approach allows the inclusion of auxiliary variables, and is consistent with almost all the primary analysis models described in the literature, and readily allows sensitivity analysis (to the missing at random assumption) to be performed. Having presented our framework, we illustrate its application to the analysis of the 2019 MOVE-IT trial of motivational interviewing to increase exercise.

Indexed as

AccelerometryExerciseHumansAccelerometerClinical trialMissing dataMultiple imputationWearables

Identifiers

PMID34090494
PMCPMC8178870

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.