| Title |
Missing Data in Randomized Clinical Trials for Weight Loss: Scope of the Problem, State of the Field, and Performance of Statistical Methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0006624 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mai A. Elobeid, Miguel A. Padilla, Theresa McVie, Olivia Thomas, David W. Brock, Bret Musser, Kaifeng Lu, Christopher S. Coffey, Renee A. Desmond, Marie-Pierre St-Onge, Kishore M. Gadde, Steven B. Heymsfield, David B. Allison |
| Abstract |
Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 22% |
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Professor | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 29% |
| Psychology | 23 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |