Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/31967
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKunzmann, Kevinen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWernisch, Lorenzen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRichardson, Sylviaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSteyerberg, Ewout Wen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLingsma, Hesteren_UK
dc.contributor.authorErcole, Arien_UK
dc.contributor.authorMaas, Andrew I Ren_UK
dc.contributor.authorMenon, Daviden_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Lindsayen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-18T01:06:34Z-
dc.date.available2020-11-18T01:06:34Z-
dc.date.issued2021-02-15en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/31967-
dc.description.abstractLoss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 ± 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 ± 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherMary Ann Lieberten_UK
dc.relationKunzmann K, Wernisch L, Richardson S, Steyerberg EW, Lingsma H, Ercole A, Maas AIR, Menon D & Wilson L (2021) Imputation of ordinal outcomes: a comparison of approaches in traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 38 (4), pp. 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6858en_UK
dc.rightsThis Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectGOSeen_UK
dc.subjectimputationen_UK
dc.subjectmissing dataen_UK
dc.subjecttraumatic brain injuryen_UK
dc.titleImputation of ordinal outcomes: a comparison of approaches in traumatic brain injuryen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/neu.2019.6858en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid33108942en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Neurotraumaen_UK
dc.citation.issn1557-9042en_UK
dc.citation.issn0897-7151en_UK
dc.citation.volume38en_UK
dc.citation.issue4en_UK
dc.citation.spage455en_UK
dc.citation.epage463en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderEuropean Commission (Horizon 2020)en_UK
dc.citation.date13/11/2020en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationErasmus MC Rotterdamen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationErasmus MC Rotterdamen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Antwerpen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000591049100001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85100592041en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1681080en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-4113-2328en_UK
dc.date.accepted2020-10-27en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-10-27en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2020-11-17en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorKunzmann, Kevin|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWernisch, Lorenz|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRichardson, Sylvia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSteyerberg, Ewout W|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLingsma, Hester|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorErcole, Ari|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMaas, Andrew I R|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMenon, David|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilson, Lindsay|0000-0003-4113-2328en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|European Commission (Horizon 2020)|en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2020-11-17en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2020-11-17|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameneu.2019.6858.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1557-9042en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
neu.2019.6858.pdfFulltext - Published Version596.2 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.