ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Handling Missing Outcome Data in Cluster Randomized Trials With Both Individual- and Cluster-Level Dropout.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Missing outcome data are common in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), which can complicate inference. Further, the missingness can occur due to dropout of individuals, termed sporadically missing data, or dropout of clusters, termed systematically missing data, and these two types of missingness could have potentially different missing data mechanisms. We aimed to develop a well-performing and practical approach to handle inference in CRTs when outcome data may be both sporadically and systematically missing. To this end, we first examined the performance of several multilevel multiple imputation (MI) methods to handle sporadically and systematically missing CRT outcome data via a simulation study. Specifically, we examined performance under a multilevel covariate-dependent missingness assumption. Our findings indicated that several full conditional specification (FCS) methods designed for missingness in linear mixed models performed well under various scenarios, while an FCS approach using a two-stage estimator often performed poorly. We then developed methods for conducting sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of inferences under different missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR) assumptions. The methods allow for different MNAR assumptions for cluster dropout and individual dropout to reflect that they may arise from different missing data mechanisms. We used graphical displays to visualize sensitivity analysis results. Our methods are illustrated using a real data application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.