Imputation and Missing Indicators for handling missing data in the development and implementation of clinical prediction models: a simulation study
Authors:
Rose Sisk,
Matthew Sperrin,
Niels Peek,
Maarten van Smeden,
Glen P. Martin
Abstract:
Background: Existing guidelines for handling missing data are generally not consistent with the goals of prediction modelling, where missing data can occur at any stage of the model pipeline. Multiple imputation (MI), often heralded as the gold standard approach, can be challenging to apply in the clinic. Clearly, the outcome cannot be used to impute data at prediction time. Regression imputation…
▽ More
Background: Existing guidelines for handling missing data are generally not consistent with the goals of prediction modelling, where missing data can occur at any stage of the model pipeline. Multiple imputation (MI), often heralded as the gold standard approach, can be challenging to apply in the clinic. Clearly, the outcome cannot be used to impute data at prediction time. Regression imputation (RI) may offer a pragmatic alternative in the prediction context, that is simpler to apply in the clinic. Moreover, the use of missing indicators can handle informative missingness, but it is currently unknown how well they perform within CPMs. Methods: We performed a simulation study where data were generated under various missing data mechanisms to compare the predictive performance of CPMs developed using both imputation methods. We consider deployment scenarios where missing data is permitted/prohibited, and develop models that use/omit the outcome during imputation and include/omit missing indicators. Results: When complete data must be available at deployment, our findings were in line with widely used recommendations; that the outcome should be used to impute development data under MI, yet omitted under RI. When imputation is applied at deployment, omitting the outcome from the imputation at development was preferred. Missing indicators improved model performance in some specific cases, but can be harmful when missingness is dependent on the outcome. Conclusion: We provide evidence that commonly taught principles of handling missing data via MI may not apply to CPMs, particularly when data can be missing at deployment. In such settings, RI and missing indicator methods can (marginally) outperform MI. As shown, the performance of the missing data handling method must be evaluated on a study-by-study basis, and should be based on whether missing data are allowed at deployment.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
Towards a Framework for the Design, Implementation and Reporting of Methodology Scoping Reviews
Authors:
Glen P. Martin,
David Jenkins,
Lucy Bull,
Rose Sisk,
Lijing Lin,
William Hulme,
Anthony Wilson,
Wenjuan Wang,
Michael Barrowman,
Camilla Sammut-Powell,
Alexander Pate,
Matthew Sperrin,
Niels Peek
Abstract:
Background: In view of the growth of published papers, there is an increasing need for studies that summarise scientific research. An increasingly common review is a 'Methodology scoping review', which provides a summary of existing analytical methods, techniques and software, proposed or applied in research articles, which address an analytical problem or further an analytical approach. However,…
▽ More
Background: In view of the growth of published papers, there is an increasing need for studies that summarise scientific research. An increasingly common review is a 'Methodology scoping review', which provides a summary of existing analytical methods, techniques and software, proposed or applied in research articles, which address an analytical problem or further an analytical approach. However, guidelines for their design, implementation and reporting are limited.
Methods: Drawing on the experiences of the authors, which were consolidated through a series of face-to-face workshops, we summarise the challenges inherent in conducting a methodology scoping review and offer suggestions of best practice to promote future guideline development.
Results: We identified three challenges of conducting a methodology scoping review. First, identification of search terms; one cannot usually define the search terms a priori and the language used for a particular method can vary across the literature. Second, the scope of the review requires careful consideration since new methodology is often not described (in full) within abstracts. Third, many new methods are motivated by a specific clinical question, where the methodology may only be documented in supplementary materials. We formulated several recommendations that build upon existing review guidelines. These recommendations ranged from an iterative approach to defining search terms through to screening and data extraction processes.
Conclusion: Although methodology scoping reviews are an important aspect of research, there is currently a lack of guidelines to standardise their design, implementation and reporting. We recommend a wider discussion on this topic.
△ Less
Submitted 16 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
