Dataset Information

A review of the use of controlled multiple imputation in randomised controlled trials with missing outcome data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Missing 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

Controlled 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.

SUBMITTER: Tan PT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8048273 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncomplete categorical variables with more than two categories are common in public health data. However, most of the existing missing-data methods do not use the information from nonresponse (missingness) probabilities.MethodsWe propose a nearest-neighbour multiple imputation approach to impute a missing at random categorical outcome and to estimate the proportion of each category. The donor set for imputation is formed by measuring distances between each missing value with other non-missing values. The distance function is calculated based on a predictive score, which is derived from two working models: one fits a multinomial logistic regression for predicting the missing categorical outcome (the outcome model) and the other fits a logistic regression for predicting missingness probabilities (the missingness model). A weighting scheme is used to accommodate contributions from two working models when generating the predictive score. A missing value is imputed by randomly selecting one of the non-missing values with the smallest distances. We conduct a simulation to evaluate the performance of the proposed method and compare it with several alternative methods. A real-data application is also presented.ResultsThe simulation study suggests that the proposed method performs well when missingness probabilities are not extreme under some misspecifications of the working models. However, the calibration estimator, which is also based on two working models, can be highly unstable when missingness probabilities for some observations are extremely high. In this scenario, the proposed method produces more stable and better estimates. In addition, proper weights need to be chosen to balance the contributions from the two working models and achieve optimal results for the proposed method.ConclusionsWe conclude that the proposed multiple imputation method is a reasonable approach to dealing with missing categorical outcome data with more than two levels for assessing the distribution of the outcome. In terms of the choices for the working models, we suggest a multinomial logistic regression for predicting the missing outcome and a binary logistic regression for predicting the missingness probability.

Project description:Whole brain fMRI analyses rarely include the entire brain because of missing data that result from data acquisition limits and susceptibility artifact, in particular. This missing data problem is typically addressed by omitting voxels from analysis, which may exclude brain regions that are of theoretical interest and increase the potential for Type II error at cortical boundaries or Type I error when spatial thresholds are used to establish significance. Imputation could significantly expand statistical map coverage, increase power, and enhance interpretations of fMRI results. We examined multiple imputation for group level analyses of missing fMRI data using methods that leverage the spatial information in fMRI datasets for both real and simulated data. Available case analysis, neighbor replacement, and regression based imputation approaches were compared in a general linear model framework to determine the extent to which these methods quantitatively (effect size) and qualitatively (spatial coverage) increased the sensitivity of group analyses. In both real and simulated data analysis, multiple imputation provided 1) variance that was most similar to estimates for voxels with no missing data, 2) fewer false positive errors in comparison to mean replacement, and 3) fewer false negative errors in comparison to available case analysis. Compared to the standard analysis approach of omitting voxels with missing data, imputation methods increased brain coverage in this study by 35% (from 33,323 to 45,071 voxels). In addition, multiple imputation increased the size of significant clusters by 58% and number of significant clusters across statistical thresholds, compared to the standard voxel omission approach. While neighbor replacement produced similar results, we recommend multiple imputation because it uses an informed sampling distribution to deal with missing data across subjects that can include neighbor values and other predictors. Multiple imputation is anticipated to be particularly useful for 1) large fMRI data sets with inconsistent missing voxels across subjects and 2) addressing the problem of increased artifact at ultra-high field, which significantly limit the extent of whole brain coverage and interpretations of results.

Project description:The aim of this review was to establish the frequency with which trials take into account missingness, and to discover what methods trialists use for adjustment in randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements. Failing to address the problems that can arise from missing outcome data can result in misleading conclusions. Missing data should be addressed as a means of a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. One hundred publications of randomised controlled trials with longitudinal measurements were selected randomly from trial publications from the years 2005 to 2012. Information was extracted from these trials, including whether reasons for dropout were reported, what methods were used for handing the missing data, whether there was any explanation of the methods for missing data handling, and whether a statistician was involved in the analysis. The main focus of the review was on missing data post dropout rather than missing interim data. Of all the papers in the study, 9 (9%) had no missing data. More than half of the papers included in the study failed to make any attempt to explain the reasons for their choice of missing data handling method. Of the papers with clear missing data handling methods, 44 papers (50%) used adequate methods of missing data handling, whereas 30 (34%) of the papers used missing data methods which may not have been appropriate. In the remaining 17 papers (19%), it was difficult to assess the validity of the methods used. An imputation method was used in 18 papers (20%). Multiple imputation methods were introduced in 1987 and are an efficient way of accounting for missing data in general, and yet only 4 papers used these methods. Out of the 18 papers which used imputation, only 7 displayed the results as a sensitivity analysis of the complete case analysis results. 61% of the papers that used an imputation explained the reasons for their chosen method. Just under a third of the papers made no reference to reasons for missing outcome data. There was little consistency in reporting of missing data within longitudinal trials.