Transportability of missing data models across study sites for research synthesis
Thiesmeier, R.; Madley-Dowd, P.; Ahlqvist, V.; Orsini, N.
Show abstract
IntroductionSystematically missing covariates are a common challenge in medical research synthesis of quantitative data, particularly when individual participant data cannot be shared across study sites. Imputing covariate values in studies where they are systematically unobserved using information from sites where the covariate is observed implicitly assumes similarity of associations across studies. The behaviour of this assumption, and the bias arising from violating it, remains difficult to qualitatively reason about. Here, we evaluated a two-stage imputation approach for handling systematically missing covariates using simulations across a range of statistical and causal heterogeneity scenarios. MethodsWe conducted a simulation study with varying degrees of between-study heterogeneity and systematic differences in model parameters. A binary confounder was set to systematically missing in half of the studies. Study-specific effect estimates were combined using a two-stage meta-analytic model. The performance of the imputation approach was evaluated with the primary estimand being the pooled conditional confounding-adjusted exposure effect across all studies. ResultsBias in the pooled adjusted effect estimate was small across scenarios with low to substantial between-study heterogeneity. Bias increased monotonically with increasingly pronounced differences in causal structures across study sites. Coverage remained close to the nominal level under low to substantial between-study heterogeneity, but deteriorated markedly as differences in causal structures between study sites became more severe. ConclusionThe two-stage cross-site imputation approach produced valid pooled effect estimates across a wide range of simulated scenarios but showed monotonic sensitivity to differences in causal structures across studies. The results provide insight into the conditions under which cross-site imputation may be appropriate for handling systematically missing covariates in research synthesis.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 95%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 95%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 95%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 95%
- Revisiting and expanding the meta-analysis of variation: The log coefficient of variation ratio, lnCVR 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables 94%
- Potential Biases in Test-Negative Design Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Arising from the Inclusion of Asymptomatic Individuals 90%
- Mendelian randomization, lipids and coronary artery disease: trade-offs between study designs and assumptions 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 94%
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 94%
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.