
doi: 10.1002/hec.766
pmid: 12720255
AbstractWhen collecting patient‐level resource use data for statistical analysis, for some patients and in some categories of resource use, the required count will not be observed. Although this problem must arise in most reported economic evaluations containing patient‐level data, it is rare for authors to detail how the problem was overcome. Statistical packages may default to handling missing data through a so‐called ‘complete case analysis’, while some recent cost‐analyses have appeared to favour an ‘available case’ approach. Both of these methods are problematic: complete case analysis is inefficient and is likely to be biased; available case analysis, by employing different numbers of observations for each resource use item, generates severe problems for standard statistical inference. Instead we explore imputation methods for generating ‘replacement’ values for missing data that will permit complete case analysis using the whole data set and we illustrate these methods using two data sets that had incomplete resource use information. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Male, Likelihood Functions, Patient Dropouts, Transurethral Resection of Prostate, Bayes Theorem, Efficiency, Length of Stay, HG, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Laser Therapy, RA, Algorithms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Male, Likelihood Functions, Patient Dropouts, Transurethral Resection of Prostate, Bayes Theorem, Efficiency, Length of Stay, HG, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Laser Therapy, RA, Algorithms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 294 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
