Cited by 527Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Attrition in longitudinal studies

Twisk, Jos, de Vente, Wieke·2002·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to illustrate the influence of missing data on the results of longitudinal statistical analyses [i.e., MANOVA for repeated measurements and Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE)] and to illustrate the influence of using different imputation methods to replace missing data. Besides a complete dataset, four incomplete datasets were considered: two datasets with 10% missing data and two datasets with 25% missing data. In both situations missingness was considered independent and dependent on observed data. Imputation methods were divided into cross-sectional methods (i.e., mean of series, hot deck, and cross-sectional regression) and longitudinal methods (i.e., last value carried forward, longitudinal interpolation, and longitudinal regression). Besides these, also the multiple imputation method was applied and discussed. The analyses were performed on a particular (observational) longitudinal dataset, with particular missing data patterns and imputation methods. The results of this illustration shows that when MANOVA for repeated measurements is used, imputation methods are highly recommendable (because MANOVA as implemented in the software used, uses listwise deletion of cases with a missing value). Applying GEE analysis, imputation methods were not necessary. When imputation methods were used, longitudinal imputation methods were often preferable above cross-sectional imputation methods, in a way that the point estimates and standard errors were closer to the estimates derived from the complete dataset. Furthermore, this study showed that the theoretically more valid multiple imputation method did not lead to different point estimates than the more simple (longitudinal) imputation methods. However, the estimated standard errors appeared to be theoretically more adequate, because they reflect the uncertainty in estimation caused by missing values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00476-0

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GEE allows for not using imputation methods for missing data because participants with missing data are not excluded from the analysis.

    “GEE allows for not using imputation methods for the missing data, because the participants with missing data are not excluded from the analysis [46].”
  • GEE models adjust for dependency of repeated measures within one participant and can handle non-normally distributed data and missing data.

    “We chose GEE models because EMA data have a hierarchical structure; this type of model adjusts for dependency of repeated measures within one participant and can handle non-normally distributed data. GEE models are also suitable for dealing with missing data; it is not required to exclude participants with missing questionnaires, nor should missing questionnaires be imputed beforehand.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Twisk, J., & de Vente, W.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Twisk, Jos
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-04
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
329-337
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032594557
Cited by
527
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 27
FWCI
14.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
attrition, missing data, longitudinal study, imputation methods, multiple imputation, generalized estimating equations, listwise deletion, hot deck imputation, cross-sectional regression, standard errors
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Mathematical Computing, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review