Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2510.05857

Missing Data Imputation in the Context of Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review

Saghar Garayemi·Reza Ali Akbari Khoei·Sarah Friedrich
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Missing data is a common challenge in observational studies. Another challenge stems from the observational nature of the study itself. Here, propensity score analysis can be used as a technique to replicate conditions similar to those found in clinical trials. With regard to the missing data, a majority of studies only analyze the complete cases, but this has several pitfalls. In this review, we investigate which methods are used for the handling of missing data in the context of propensity score analyses. Therefore, we searched PubMed for the keywords propensity score and missing data, restricting our search to the time between January 2010 and February 2024. The PRISMA statement was followed in this review. A total of 147 articles were included in the analyses. A major finding of this study is that although the usage of multiple imputation (MI) has risen over time, only a limited number of studies describe the mechanism of missing data and the details of the MI algorithm. Keywords Missing data, Propensity Score, Observational Data, Multiple Imputation, Systematic Review

Explore related subjects

stat.OT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Saghar Garayemi, Reza Ali Akbari Khoei, Sarah Friedrich. 2025-10-07. Missing Data Imputation in the Context of Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05857

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Why is Regularization Underused? An Empirical Study on Trust and Adoption of Statistical Methods

Statistical practice does not automatically follow methodological innovation. Regularization methods, widely advocated to reduce overfitting and stabilize inference, are readily available in modern software, but are not consistently used by data analysts. We investigate this implementation gap in a large-scale empirical study of trust in, and acceptance of, regularization techniques, based on $N = 606$ data analysts. Drawing on measurement frameworks from technology acceptance research, we survey practitioners and embed a randomized experiment to test whether written recommendation of regularization methods increases trust or intended use. We find no evidence of such an effect. Instead, adoption intentions are strongly associated with analysts' perceptions of ease of implementation and practical benefit, such as improved bias control or interpretability. Perceived social norms also emerge as a central driver. These results indicate that uptake of statistical methodology depends less on formal recommendations than on usability, perceived utility, and community practice.

stat.OT↗
arXiv2026

Exact analysis of a split--merge queue with latent Erlang-factor dependent subtask times

This paper studies a two-server split--merge queue with positively dependent subtask service times modeled through a latent-factor bivariate Erlang construction. An exact characterization of the split--merge completion time is obtained, including explicit formulas for its first two moments and the resulting mean waiting time. Under fixed marginal service-time distributions, independence is shown to stochastically increase the completion time and hence overestimate mean waiting time. Numerical illustrations show that this benchmark gap can be substantial.

stat.OT↗
arXiv2026

Statistical Compatibility, Refutational Information, and Acceptability

This paper develops an interpretive framework for divergence P-values and S-values within a descriptive frequentist perspective. Statistical analysis is framed as operating within idealized worlds defined by a set of assumptions and a target hypothesis, where probabilities describe the behavior of data under the model but do not assign truth values to hypotheses. Within this view, P-values are interpreted as graded indices of compatibility between the observed result and the predictions generated by the assumed model; accordingly, small P-values should not be read as indicating logical impossibility or strict inconsistency of the model itself. Building on this distinction, the paper argues that practical inference requires moving beyond the internal logic of the model toward judgments of overall acceptability, which depend not only on data-model compatibility but also on multiple contextual considerations such as subject-matter knowledge, plausibility of assumptions, data quality, usefulness, and loss - all interpreted through the competence, intentions, perceptions, and moral values of the specific analyst. S-values are therefore interpreted not as evidence against the epistemic status of the model, but as a specific form of refutational information that contributes to the broader body of information used by the analyst to judge whether a model remains acceptable for an intended practical purpose. The paper also examines the linguistic and conceptual risks associated with the language of incompatibility, distinguishes probability from rarity, and clarifies different notions of surprise - including a possible definition of Shannon-type surprise, to be distinguished from Bayesian belief revision. Overall, the article proposes a more cautious and explicit interpretation of frequentist measures, centered on model-based description, analyst responsibility, and decision acceptability.

stat.OT↗