A narrative review finds only seven methodological papers on missing data in SMARTs (mostly assuming missing at random), median 18% attrition in 30 trials, and mixed models as the most common handling approach, revealing a gap between methods and practice.
Claude Opus 4.6 [Large Language Model]
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
fields
stat.ME 1years
2026 1verdicts
UNVERDICTED 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
A Review of Methods and Practices for Missing Data in Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs): An Ancillary Study of a Scoping Review
A narrative review finds only seven methodological papers on missing data in SMARTs (mostly assuming missing at random), median 18% attrition in 30 trials, and mixed models as the most common handling approach, revealing a gap between methods and practice.