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:Background/aimsThe demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials.MethodsDatabases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool.ResultsForty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data.ConclusionsAs linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.