Imputation strategies for missing baseline neurological assessment covariates after traumatic brain injury: A CENTER-TBI study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
10
04
2021
accepted:
03
06
2021
entrez:
6
8
2021
pubmed:
7
8
2021
medline:
30
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Statistical models for outcome prediction are central to traumatic brain injury research and critical to baseline risk adjustment. Glasgow coma score (GCS) and pupil reactivity are crucial covariates in all such models but may be measured at multiple time points between the time of injury and hospital and are subject to a variable degree of unreliability and/or missingness. Imputation of missing data may be undertaken using full multiple imputation or by simple substitution of measurements from other time points. However, it is unknown which strategy is best or which time points are more predictive. We evaluated the pseudo-R2 of logistic regression models (dichotomous survival) and proportional odds models (Glasgow Outcome Score-extended) using different imputation strategies on the The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study dataset. Substitution strategies were easy to implement, achieved low levels of missingness (<< 10%) and could outperform multiple imputation without the need for computationally costly calculations and pooling multiple final models. While model performance was sensitive to imputation strategy, this effect was small in absolute terms and clinical relevance. A strategy of using the emergency department discharge assessments and working back in time when these were missing generally performed well. Full multiple imputation had the advantage of preserving time-dependence in the models: the pre-hospital assessments were found to be relatively unreliable predictors of survival or outcome. The predictive performance of later assessments was model-dependent. In conclusion, simple substitution strategies for imputing baseline GCS and pupil response can perform well and may be a simple alternative to full multiple imputation in many cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34358231
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253425
pii: PONE-D-21-11931
pmc: PMC8345855
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0253425Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
BMJ. 2008 Feb 23;336(7641):425-9
pubmed: 18270239
Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan;76(1):67-80
pubmed: 25525693
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Oct;18(10):923-934
pubmed: 31526754
J Neurotrauma. 2013 Jan 1;30(1):17-22
pubmed: 22931390
J Trauma. 1996 Sep;41(3):514-22
pubmed: 8810973
Eur Heart J. 2014 Aug 1;35(29):1925-31
pubmed: 24898551
J Trauma. 2006 May;60(5):985-90
pubmed: 16688059
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Oct 1;46(5):1372-1378
pubmed: 29025122
Lancet Neurol. 2010 May;9(5):543-54
pubmed: 20398861
J Neurotrauma. 2013 Dec 15;30(24):2021-30
pubmed: 23865489
Crit Care. 2011;15(3):R127
pubmed: 21586148
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec;16(12):987-1048
pubmed: 29122524