Abstract
Patterns of missing data are seldom well-characterized in observational research. This study examined the magnitude of, and factors associated with, missing data across multiple observational studies. Missingness was evaluated for demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from a procedure registry (TOPS), a rare disease (cystic fibrosis) registry (Port-CF), and a comparative effectiveness registry (glaucoma, RiGOR). Generalized linear mixed effects models were fit to assess whether patient characteristics or follow-up methods predicted missingness. Data from 156,707 surgical procedures, 32,118 cystic fibrosis patients, and 2373 glaucoma patients were analyzed. Data were rarely missing for demographics, treatments, and outcomes. Missingness for clinical variables varied by registry and measure and depended on whether a variable was required. Within RiGOR, PRO forms were missing more often when collected by e-mail compared with office-based paper data collection. In Port-CF, missingness varied based on insurance status and sex. Strategic consideration of operational approaches affecting missing data should be performed prior to data collection and assessed periodically during study conduct.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Turner JR. The 50th anniversary of the Kefauver-Harris Amendments: efficacy assessment and the randomized clinical trial. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14(11):810–815.
Dziura JD, Post LA, Zhao Q, Fu Z, Peduzzi P. Strategies for dealing with missing data in clinical trials: from design to analysis. Yale J Biol Med. 2013;86:343–358.
Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M, Ollendorf D, Mattox P, Gliklich R. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:1818–1825.
Kim HM, Goodman M, Kim BI, Ward KC. Frequency and determinants of missing data in clinical and prognostic variables recently added to SEER. J Registry Manag. 2011;38:120–131.
Ommen ES, LaPointe RD, Medapalli RK, Schroppel B, Murphy B. When good intensions are not enough: obtaining follow-up data in living kidney donors. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2575–2581.
Gillespie BW, Merion RM, Ortiz-Rios E, et al.; on behalf of the A2ALL Study Group. Database comparison of the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL) and the SRTR US Transplant Registry. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:1621–1633.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communication in Statistics—Theory and Methods. 1980;9:1043–1069.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:373–383.
Rosenstein BJ, Cutting GR; for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Consensus Panel. The diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: a consensus statement. J Pediatr. 1998;132:589–595.
Farrell PM, Rosenstein BJ, White TB, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in newborns through older adults: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Consensus Report. J Pediatr. 2008;153:S4–S14.
Rosenfeld M, Davis R, FitzSimmons S, Pepe M, Ramsey B. Gender gap in cystic fibrosis mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;124:794–803.
Parad RB, Gerard CJ, Zurakowski D, Nichols DP, Pier GB. Pulmonary outcome in cystic fibrosis is influenced primarily by mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and immune status and only modestly by genotype. Infect Immun. 1999;67:4744–4750.
Corey M, Edwards L, Levison H, Knowles M. Longitudinal analysis of pulmonary decline in patients with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 1997;131:809–814.
Stern M, Wiedemann B, Wenzlaff P; on behalf of the German Cystic Fibrosis Quality Assessment Group. From registry to quality management: the German Cystic Fibrosis Quality Assessment project 1995–2006. Eur Respir J. 2008;31:29–35.
Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al.; on behalf of the ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419–429.
Bezjak A, Lee CW, Ding K, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized trial, JBR.10. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5052–5059.
Klassen AC, Curriero F, Kulldorff M, Alberg AJ, Platz EA, Neloms ST. Missing stage and grade in Maryland prostate cancer surveillance data, 1992–1997. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:S77–S87.
Schechter MS, Margolis PA. Relationship between socioeconomic status and disease severity in cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 1998;132:260–264.
Parsons HM, Henderson WG, Ziegenfuss JY, Davern M, Al-Refaie WB. Missing data and interpretation of cancer surgery outcomes at the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213:379–391.
Ommen ES, LaPointe RD, Medapalli RK, Schroppel B, Murphy B. When good intentions are not enough: obtaining follow-up data in living kidney donors. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2575–2581.
Norris CM, Ghali WA, Knudtson ML, Naylor CD, Saunders LD. Dealing with missing data in observational health care outcome analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:377–383.
Groenwold RH, Donders AR, Roes KC, Harrell FE Jr. Moons KG. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. Am J Epidemiology. 2012;175:210–217.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Presented at the 28th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management, August 2012, Barcelona, Spain [abstract published in Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(issue suppl s3):No. 268].
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mendelsohn, A.B., Dreyer, N.A., Mattox, P.W. et al. Characterization of Missing Data in Clinical Registry Studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 146–154 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014532259
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014532259