Cited by 220Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines.

Open access
Burton, A, Altman, D G·2004·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Prognostic models play a crucial role in the clinical decision-making process. Unfortunately, missing covariate data impede the construction of valid and reliable models, potentially introducing bias, if handled inappropriately. The extent of missing covariate data within reported cancer prognostic studies, the current handling and the quality of reporting this missing covariate data are unknown. Therefore, a review was conducted of 100 articles reporting multivariate survival analyses to assess potential prognostic factors, published within seven cancer journals in 2002. Missing covariate data is a common occurrence in studies performing multivariate survival analyses, being apparent in 81 of the 100 articles reviewed. The percentage of eligible cases with complete data was obtainable in 39 articles, and was <90% in 17 of these articles. The methods used to handle incomplete covariates were obtainable in 32 of the 81 articles with known missing data and the most commonly reported approaches were complete case and available case analysis. This review has highlighted deficiencies in the reporting of missing covariate data. Guidelines for presenting prognostic studies with missing covariate data are proposed, which if followed should clarify and standardise the reporting in future articles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601907

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burton, A., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
Cancer Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Burton, A
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2004-06-08
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
4-8
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2040958097
Cited by
219
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
missing covariates, reporting quality, multivariate survival analysis, complete case analysis, available case analysis, missing data handling, reporting guidelines, prognostic factors
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Guidelines as Topic, Sample Size

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