Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb;19(Suppl 1):95-108.
doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0760-x.

Limitations in Using Multiple Imputation to Harmonize Individual Participant Data for Meta-Analysis

Juned Siddique  1 , Peter J de Chavez  2 , George Howe  3 , Gracelyn Cruden  4 , C Hendricks Brown  4
Affiliations

Limitations in Using Multiple Imputation to Harmonize Individual Participant Data for Meta-Analysis

Juned Siddique et al. Prev Sci. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is a meta-analysis in which the individual-level data for each study are obtained and used for synthesis. A common challenge in IPD meta-analysis is when variables of interest are measured differently in different studies. The term harmonization has been coined to describe the procedure of placing variables on the same scale in order to permit pooling of data from a large number of studies. Using data from an IPD meta-analysis of 19 adolescent depression trials, we describe a multiple imputation approach for harmonizing 10 depression measures across the 19 trials by treating those depression measures that were not used in a study as missing data. We then apply diagnostics to address the fit of our imputation model. Even after reducing the scale of our application, we were still unable to produce accurate imputations of the missing values. We describe those features of the data that made it difficult to harmonize the depression measures and provide some guidelines for using multiple imputation for harmonization in IPD meta-analysis.

Keywords: Data synthesis; Individual participant data meta-analysis; Multiple imputation; Posterior predictive checking.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile [Computer software manual] Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1991.
    1. Bauer DJ, Hussong AM. Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: Traditional and new models. Psychological Methods. 2009;14:101–125. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown CH, Brincks A, Huang S, Perrino T, Cruden G, Pantin H, … Sandler I. Two-year in impact of prevention programs on adolescent depression: An integrative data analysis approach. Prevention Science 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clarke GN, Lewinsohn PM, Hops H, Seeley JR. A self-and parent-report measure of adolescent depression: The Child Behavior Checklist Depression scale (CBCL-D) Behavioral Assessment. 1992;14
    1. Cowles MK, Carlin BP. Markov chain monte carlo convergence diagnostics: a comparative review. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996;91(434):883–904.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources