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.
