Dataset Information

Imputation of missing covariate in randomized controlled trials with a continuous outcome: Scoping review and new results.

ABSTRACT: In this article, we first review the literature on dealing with missing values on a covariate in randomized studies and summarize what has been done and what is lacking to date. We then investigate the situation with a continuous outcome and a missing binary covariate in more details through simulations, comparing the performance of multiple imputation (MI) with various simple alternative methods. This is finally extended to the case of time-to-event outcome. The simulations consider five different missingness scenarios: missing completely at random (MCAR), at random (MAR) with missingness depending only on the treatment, and missing not at random (MNAR) with missingness depending on the covariate itself (MNAR1), missingness depending on both the treatment and covariate (MNAR2), and missingness depending on the treatment, covariate and their interaction (MNAR3). Here, we distinguish two different cases: (1) when the covariate is measured before randomization (best practice), where only MCAR and MNAR1 are plausible, and (2) when it is measured after randomization but before treatment (which sometimes occurs in nonpharmaceutical research), where the other three missingness mechanisms can also occur. The proposed methods are compared based on the treatment effect estimate and its standard error. The simulation results suggest that the patterns of results are very similar for all missingness scenarios in case (1) and also in case (2) except for MNAR3. Furthermore, in each scenario for continuous outcome, there is at least one simple method that performs at least as well as MI, while for time-to-event outcome MI is best.

SUBMITTER: Kayembe MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7687108 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Imputation of missing covariate in randomized controlled trials with a continuous outcome: Scoping review and new results.

Kayembe Mutamba T MT Jolani Shahab S Tan Frans E S FES van Breukelen Gerard J P GJP

Pharmaceutical statistics 20200608 6

In this article, we first review the literature on dealing with missing values on a covariate in randomized studies and summarize what has been done and what is lacking to date. We then investigate the situation with a continuous outcome and a missing binary covariate in more details through simulations, comparing the performance of multiple imputation (MI) with various simple alternative methods. This is finally extended to the case of time-to-event outcome. The simulations consider five differ ...[more]

PMID: 32510791

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissing data are common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and can bias results if not handled appropriately. A statistically valid analysis under the primary missing-data assumptions should be conducted, followed by sensitivity analysis under alternative justified assumptions to assess the robustness of results. Controlled Multiple Imputation (MI) procedures, including delta-based and reference-based approaches, have been developed for analysis under missing-not-at-random assumptions. However, it is unclear how often these methods are used, how they are reported, and what their impact is on trial results. This review evaluates the current use and reporting of MI and controlled MI in RCTs.MethodsA targeted review of phase II-IV RCTs (non-cluster randomised) published in two leading general medical journals (The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) between January 2014 and December 2019 using MI. Data was extracted on imputation methods, analysis status, and reporting of results. Results of primary and sensitivity analyses for trials using controlled MI analyses were compared.ResultsA total of 118 RCTs (9% of published RCTs) used some form of MI. MI under missing-at-random was used in 110 trials; this was for primary analysis in 43/118 (36%), and in sensitivity analysis for 70/118 (59%) (3 used in both). Sixteen studies performed controlled MI (1.3% of published RCTs), either with a delta-based (n = 9) or reference-based approach (n = 7). Controlled MI was mostly used in sensitivity analysis (n = 14/16). Two trials used controlled MI for primary analysis, including one reporting no sensitivity analysis whilst the other reported similar results without imputation. Of the 14 trials using controlled MI in sensitivity analysis, 12 yielded comparable results to the primary analysis whereas 2 demonstrated contradicting results. Only 5/110 (5%) trials using missing-at-random MI and 5/16 (31%) trials using controlled MI reported complete details on MI methods.ConclusionsControlled MI enabled the impact of accessible contextually relevant missing data assumptions to be examined on trial results. The use of controlled MI is increasing but is still infrequent and poorly reported where used. There is a need for improved reporting on the implementation of MI analyses and choice of controlled MI parameters.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is important to estimate the treatment effect of interest accurately and precisely within the analysis of randomised controlled trials. One way to increase precision in the estimate and thus improve the power for randomised trials with continuous outcomes is through adjustment for pre-specified prognostic baseline covariates. Typically covariate adjustment is conducted using regression analysis, however recently, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score has been proposed as an alternative method. For a continuous outcome it has been shown that the IPTW estimator has the same large sample statistical properties as that obtained via analysis of covariance. However the performance of IPTW has not been explored for smaller population trials (<?100 participants), where precise estimation of the treatment effect has potential for greater impact than in larger samples. METHODS:In this paper we explore the performance of the baseline adjusted treatment effect estimated using IPTW in smaller population trial settings. To do so we present a simulation study including a number of different trial scenarios with sample sizes ranging from 40 to 200 and adjustment for up to 6 covariates. We also re-analyse a paediatric eczema trial that includes 60 children. RESULTS:In the simulation study the performance of the IPTW variance estimator was sub-optimal with smaller sample sizes. The coverage of 95% CI's was marginally below 95% for sample sizes <?150 and???100. For sample sizes <?100 the coverage of 95% CI's was always significantly below 95% for all covariate settings. The minimum coverage obtained with IPTW was 89% with n?=?40. In comparison, regression adjustment always resulted in 95% coverage. The analysis of the eczema trial confirmed discrepancies between the IPTW and regression estimators in a real life small population setting. CONCLUSIONS:The IPTW variance estimator does not perform so well with small samples. Thus we caution against the use of IPTW in small sample settings when the sample size is less than 150 and particularly when sample size <?100.

Dataset Information

Imputation of missing covariate in randomized controlled trials with a continuous outcome: Scoping review and new results.

Publications

Imputation of missing covariate in randomized controlled trials with a continuous outcome: Scoping review and new results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets