Dataset Information

Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Missing data are unavoidable in epidemiological research, potentially leading to bias and loss of precision. Multiple imputation (MI) is widely advocated as an improvement over complete case analysis (CCA). However, contrary to widespread belief, CCA is preferable to MI in some situations. METHODS:We provide guidance on choice of analysis when data are incomplete. Using causal diagrams to depict missingness mechanisms, we describe when CCA will not be biased by missing data and compare MI and CCA, with respect to bias and efficiency, in a range of missing data situations. We illustrate selection of an appropriate method in practice. RESULTS:For most regression models, CCA gives unbiased results when the chance of being a complete case does not depend on the outcome after taking the covariates into consideration, which includes situations where data are missing not at random. Consequently, there are situations in which CCA analyses are unbiased while MI analyses, assuming missing at random (MAR), are biased. By contrast MI, unlike CCA, is valid for all MAR situations and has the potential to use information contained in the incomplete cases and auxiliary variables to reduce bias and/or improve precision. For this reason, MI was preferred over CCA in our real data example. CONCLUSIONS:Choice of method for dealing with missing data is crucial for validity of conclusions, and should be based on careful consideration of the reasons for the missing data, missing data patterns and the availability of auxiliary information.

SUBMITTER: Hughes RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6693809 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer.

Hughes Rachael A RA Heron Jon J Sterne Jonathan A C JAC Tilling Kate K

International journal of epidemiology 20190801 4

<h4>Background</h4>Missing data are unavoidable in epidemiological research, potentially leading to bias and loss of precision. Multiple imputation (MI) is widely advocated as an improvement over complete case analysis (CCA). However, contrary to widespread belief, CCA is preferable to MI in some situations.<h4>Methods</h4>We provide guidance on choice of analysis when data are incomplete. Using causal diagrams to depict missingness mechanisms, we describe when CCA will not be biased by missing ...[more]

PMID: 30879056

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.

Dataset Information

Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer.

Publications

Accounting for missing data in statistical analyses: multiple imputation is not always the answer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets