Missing data are ubiquitous in clinical epidemiological research. Individuals with missing data may differ from those with no missing data in terms of the outcome of interest and prognosis in general. Missing data are often categorized into the following three types: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR). In clinical epidemiological research, missing data are seldom MCAR. Missing data can constitute considerable challenges in the analyses and interpretation of results and can potentially weaken the validity of results and conclusions. A number of methods have been developed for dealing with missing data. These include complete-case analyses, missing indicator method, single value imputation, and sensitivity analyses incorporating worst-case and best-case scenarios. If applied under the MCAR assumption, some of these methods can provide unbiased but often less precise estimates. Multiple imputation is an alternative method to deal with missing data, which accounts for the uncertainty associated with missing data. Multiple imputation is implemented in most statistical software under the MAR assumption and provides unbiased and valid estimates of associations based on information from the available data. The method affects not only the coefficient estimates for variables with missing data but also the estimates for other variables with no missing data.

ObjectivesWe compared incidence of dementia diagnosis by white, black, and Asian ethnic groups and estimated the proportion of UK white and black people developing dementia in 2015 who had a diagnosis for the first time in a UK-wide study.MethodsWe analyzed primary care electronic health records from The Health Improvement Network database between 2007 and 2015 and compared incidence of dementia diagnosis to dementia incidence from community cohort studies. The study sample comprised of 2,511,681 individuals aged 50–105 years who did not have a dementia diagnosis prior to the start of follow-up.ResultsA total of 66,083 individuals had a dementia diagnosis (4.87/1,000 person-years at risk, 95% CI 4.83–4.90); this incidence increased from 3.75 to 5.65/1,000 person-years at risk between 2007 and 2015. Compared with white women, the incidence of dementia diagnosis was 18% lower among Asian women (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.95) and 25% higher among black women (IRR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07–1.46). For men, incidence of dementia diagnosis was 28% higher in the black ethnic group (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.08–1.50) and 12% lower in the Asian ethnic group (IRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76–1.01) relative to the white ethnic group. Based on diagnosis incidence in The Health Improvement Network data and projections of incidence from community cohort studies, we estimated that 42% of black men developing dementia in 2015 were diagnosed compared with 53% of white men.ConclusionPeople from the black ethnic group had a higher incidence of dementia diagnosis and those from the Asian ethnic group had lower incidence compared with the white ethnic group. We estimated that black men developing dementia were less likely than white men to have a diagnosis of dementia, indicating that the increased risk of dementia diagnosis reported in the black ethnic group might underestimate the higher risk of dementia in this group. It is unclear whether the lower incidence of dementia diagnosis in the Asian ethnic group reflects lower community incidence or underdiagnosis. A cohort study to determine this is needed.

Aims/Hypothesis: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with high levels of disease burden, including increased mortality risk and significant long-term morbidity. The prevalence of diabetes differs substantially among ethnic groups. We examined the prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the UK primary care setting. Methods: We analysed data from 404,318 individuals in The Health Improvement Network database, aged 0-99 years and permanently registered with general practices in London. The association between ethnicity and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2013 was estimated using a logistic regression model, adjusting for effect of age group, sex, and social deprivation. A multiple imputation approach utilising population-level information about ethnicity from the UK census was used for imputing missing data. Results: Compared with those of White ethnicity (5.04%, 95% CI 4.95 to 5.13), the crude percentage prevalence of type 2 diabetes was higher in the Asian (7.69%, 95% CI 7.46 to 7.92) and Black (5.58%, 95% CI 5.35 to 5.81) ethnic groups, while lower in the Mixed/Other group (3.42%, 95% CI 3.19 to 3.66). After adjusting for differences in age group, sex, and social deprivation, all minority ethnic groups were more likely to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes compared with the White group (OR Asian versus White 2.36, 95% CI 2.26 to 2.47; OR Black versus White 1.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.73; OR Mixed/Other versus White 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27). Conclusion: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes was higher in the Asian and Black ethnic groups, compared with the White group. Accurate estimates of ethnic prevalence of type 2 diabetes based on large datasets are important for facilitating appropriate allocation of public health resources, and for allowing population-level research to be undertaken examining disease trajectories among minority ethnic groups, that might help reduce inequalities.

Background Clinical databases are increasingly used for health research; many of them capture information on common health indicators including height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol level, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. However, these are often not recorded on a regular basis; missing data are ubiquitous. We described the recording of health indicators in UK primary care and evaluated key implications for handling missing data. Methods We examined the recording of health indicators in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) UK primary care database over time, by demographic variables (age and sex) and chronic diseases (diabetes, myocardial infarction, and stroke). Using weight as an example, we fitted linear and logistic regression models to examine the associations of weight measurements and the probability of having weight recorded with individuals’ demographic characteristics and chronic diseases. Results In total, 6,345,851 individuals aged 18–99 years contributed data to THIN between 2000 and 2015. Women aged 18–65 years were more likely than men of the same age to have health indicators recorded; this gap narrowed after age 65. About 60–80% of individuals had their height, weight, blood pressure, smoking status, and alcohol consumption recorded during the first year of registration. In the years following registration, these proportions fell to 10%–40%. Individuals with chronic diseases were more likely to have health indicators recorded, particularly after the introduction of a General Practitioner incentive scheme. Individuals’ demographic characteristics and chronic diseases were associated with both observed weight measurements and missingness in weight. Conclusion Missing data in common health indicators will affect statistical analysis in health research studies. A single analysis of primary care data using the available information alone may be misleading. Multiple imputation of missing values accounting for demographic characteristics and disease status is recommended but should be considered and implemented carefully. Sensitivity analysis exploring alternative assumptions for missing data should also be evaluated.

Open Science is encouraged by the European Union and many other political and scientific institutions. However, scientific practice is proving slow to change. We propose, as early career researchers, that it is our task to change scientific research into open scientific research and commit to Open Science principles.