Cited by 893Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

A critical look at methods for handling missing covariates in epidemiologic regression analyses.

Greenland, Sander, Finkle, William D.·1995·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Epidemiologic studies often encounter missing covariate values. While simple methods such as stratification on missing-data status, conditional-mean imputation, and complete-subject analysis are commonly employed for handling this problem, several studies have shown that these methods can be biased under reasonable circumstances. The authors review these results in the context of logistic regression and present simulation experiments showing the limitations of the methods. The method based on missing-data indicators can exhibit severe bias even when the data are missing completely at random, and regression (conditional-mean) imputation can be inordinately sensitive to model misspecification. Even complete-subject analysis can outperform these methods. More sophisticated methods, such as maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and weighted estimating equations, have been given extensive attention in the statistics literature. While these methods are superior to simple methods, they are not commonly used in epidemiology, no doubt due to their complexity and the lack of packaged software to apply these methods. The authors contrast the results of multiple imputation to simple methods in the analysis of a case-control study of endometrial cancer, and they find a meaningful difference in results for age at menarche. In general, the authors recommend that epidemiologists avoid using the missing-indicator method and use more sophisticated methods whenever a large proportion of data are missing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117592

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenland, S., & Finkle, W. D.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Greenland, Sander
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1995-12-15
Volume
142
Issue
12
Pages
1255-1264
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2166561686
Cited by
891
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 67
FWCI
6.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • American Journal of Epidemiology
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01cp095680-001)
  • National Cancer Institute (N01 CP 95680)
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 › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
missing covariates, missing data, logistic regression, bias, model misspecification, multiple imputation, maximum likelihood estimation, weighted estimating equations, endometrial cancer, age at menarche, case-control study
MeSH terms
Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Menarche, Research Design, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies, Endometrial Neoplasms

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