Dataset Information

Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

ABSTRACT: Epidemiologic studies are frequently susceptible to missing information. Omitting observations with missing variables remains a common strategy in epidemiologic studies, yet this simple approach can often severely bias parameter estimates of interest if the values are not missing completely at random. Even when missingness is completely random, complete-case analysis can reduce the efficiency of estimated parameters, because large amounts of available data are simply tossed out with the incomplete observations. Alternative methods for mitigating the influence of missing information, such as multiple imputation, are becoming an increasing popular strategy in order to retain all available information, reduce potential bias, and improve efficiency in parameter estimation. In this paper, we describe the theoretical underpinnings of multiple imputation, and we illustrate application of this method as part of a collaborative challenge to assess the performance of various techniques for dealing with missing data (Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):568-575). We detail the steps necessary to perform multiple imputation on a subset of data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project (1959-1974), where the goal is to estimate the odds of spontaneous abortion associated with smoking during pregnancy.

SUBMITTER: Harel O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860387 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

Harel Ofer O Mitchell Emily M EM Perkins Neil J NJ Cole Stephen R SR Tchetgen Tchetgen Eric J EJ Sun BaoLuo B Schisterman Enrique F EF

American journal of epidemiology 20180301 3

Epidemiologic studies are frequently susceptible to missing information. Omitting observations with missing variables remains a common strategy in epidemiologic studies, yet this simple approach can often severely bias parameter estimates of interest if the values are not missing completely at random. Even when missingness is completely random, complete-case analysis can reduce the efficiency of estimated parameters, because large amounts of available data are simply tossed out with the incomple ...[more]

PMID: 29165547

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissing data are common in observational studies and often occur in several of the variables required when estimating a causal effect, i.e. the exposure, outcome and/or variables used to control for confounding. Analyses involving multiple incomplete variables are not as straightforward as analyses with a single incomplete variable. For example, in the context of multivariable missingness, the standard missing data assumptions ("missing completely at random", "missing at random" [MAR], "missing not at random") are difficult to interpret and assess. It is not clear how the complexities that arise due to multivariable missingness are being addressed in practice. The aim of this study was to review how missing data are managed and reported in observational studies that use multiple imputation (MI) for causal effect estimation, with a particular focus on missing data summaries, missing data assumptions, primary and sensitivity analyses, and MI implementation.MethodsWe searched five top general epidemiology journals for observational studies that aimed to answer a causal research question and used MI, published between January 2019 and December 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed systematically.ResultsOf the 130 studies included in this review, 108 (83%) derived an analysis sample by excluding individuals with missing data in specific variables (e.g., outcome) and 114 (88%) had multivariable missingness within the analysis sample. Forty-four (34%) studies provided a statement about missing data assumptions, 35 of which stated the MAR assumption, but only 11/44 (25%) studies provided a justification for these assumptions. The number of imputations, MI method and MI software were generally well-reported (71%, 75% and 88% of studies, respectively), while aspects of the imputation model specification were not clear for more than half of the studies. A secondary analysis that used a different approach to handle the missing data was conducted in 69/130 (53%) studies. Of these 69 studies, 68 (99%) lacked a clear justification for the secondary analysis.ConclusionEffort is needed to clarify the rationale for and improve the reporting of MI for estimation of causal effects from observational data. We encourage greater transparency in making and reporting analytical decisions related to missing data.

Project description:BackgroundEnvironmental epidemiology, when focused on the life course of exposure to a specific pollutant, requires historical exposure estimates that are difficult to obtain for the full time period due to gaps in the historical record, especially in earlier years. We show that these gaps can be filled by applying multiple imputation methods to a formal risk equation that incorporates lifetime exposure. We also address challenges that arise, including choice of imputation method, potential bias in regression coefficients, and uncertainty in age-at-exposure sensitivities.MethodsDuring time periods when parameters needed in the risk equation are missing for an individual, the parameters are filled by an imputation model using group level information or interpolation. A random component is added to match the variance found in the estimates for study subjects not needing imputation. The process is repeated to obtain multiple data sets, whose regressions against health data can be combined statistically to develop confidence limits using Rubin's rules to account for the uncertainty introduced by the imputations. To test for possible recall bias between cases and controls, which can occur when historical residence location is obtained by interview, and which can lead to misclassification of imputed exposure by disease status, we introduce an "incompleteness index," equal to the percentage of dose imputed (PDI) for a subject. "Effective doses" can be computed using different functional dependencies of relative risk on age of exposure, allowing intercomparison of different risk models. To illustrate our approach, we quantify lifetime exposure (dose) from traffic air pollution in an established case-control study on Long Island, New York, where considerable in-migration occurred over a period of many decades.ResultsThe major result is the described approach to imputation. The illustrative example revealed potential recall bias, suggesting that regressions against health data should be done as a function of PDI to check for consistency of results. The 1% of study subjects who lived for long durations near heavily trafficked intersections, had very high cumulative exposures. Thus, imputation methods must be designed to reproduce non-standard distributions.ConclusionsOur approach meets a number of methodological challenges to extending historical exposure reconstruction over a lifetime and shows promise for environmental epidemiology. Application to assessment of breast cancer risks will be reported in a subsequent manuscript.

Dataset Information

Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

Publications

Multiple Imputation for Incomplete Data in Epidemiologic Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets