Population-calibrated multiple imputation for a binary/categorical covariate in categorical regression models

Multiple imputation (MI) has become popular for analyses with missing data in medical research. The standard implementation of MI is based on the assumption of data being missing at random (MAR). However, for missing data generated by missing not at random mechanisms, MI performed assuming MAR might not be satisfactory. For an incomplete variable in a given data set, its corresponding population marginal distribution might also be available in an external data source. We show how this information can be readily utilised in the imputation model to calibrate inference to the population by incorporating an appropriately calculated offset termed the “calibrated-δ adjustment.” We describe the derivation of this offset from the population distribution of the incomplete variable and show how, in applications, it can be used to closely (and often exactly) match the post-imputation distribution to the population level. Through analytic and simulation studies, we show that our proposed calibrated-δ adjustment MI method can give the same inference as standard MI when data are MAR, and can produce more accurate inference under two general missing not at random missingness mechanisms. The method is used to impute missing ethnicity data in a type 2 diabetes prevalence case study using UK primary care electronic health records, where it results in scientifically relevant changes in inference for non-White ethnic groups compared with standard MI. Calibrated-δ adjustment MI represents a pragmatic approach for utilising available population-level information in a sensitivity analysis to explore potential departures from the MAR assumption.     

A comparison of multiple imputation and fully augmented weighted estimators for Cox regression with missing covariates

Several approaches exist for handling missing covariates in the Cox proportional hazards model. The multiple imputation (MI) is relatively easy to implement with various software available and results in consistent estimates if the imputation model is correct. On the other hand, the fully augmented weighted estimators (FAWEs) recover a substantial proportion of the efficiency and have the doubly robust property. In this paper, we compare the FAWEs and the MI through a comprehensive simulation study. For the MI, we consider the multiple imputation by chained equation and focus on two imputation methods: Bayesian linear regression imputation and predictive mean matching. Simulation results show that the imputation methods can be rather sensitive to model misspecification and may have large bias when the censoring time depends on the missing covariates. In contrast, the FAWEs allow the censoring time to depend on the missing covariates and are remarkably robust as long as getting either the conditional expectations or the selection probability correct due to the doubly robust property. The comparison suggests that the FAWEs show the potential for being a competitive and attractive tool for tackling the analysis of survival data with missing covariates. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

多种缺失机制共存的定量纵向缺失数据处理方法的模拟比较研究

目的 比较在处理多种缺失机制共存的定量纵向缺失数据时,基于对照的模式混合模型（PMM）、重复测量的混合效应模型（MMRM）以及多重填补法(MI)的统计性能。方法 采用Monte Carlo技术模拟产生包含完全随机缺失、随机缺失和非随机缺失中两种或三种缺失机制的定量纵向缺失数据集,评价三类处理方法的统计性能。结果 基于对照的PMM控制Ⅰ类错误率在较低水平,检验效能最低。MMRM和MI的Ⅰ类错误率可控,检验效能高于基于对照的PMM。两组疗效无差异的情况下,所有方法的估计误差相当,基于对照的PMM方法的95%置信区间覆盖率最高;有差异的情况下,各方法受符合其缺失机制假设的缺失比例大小影响。含有非随机缺失数据时,基于对照的PMM基本不高估疗效差异,95%置信区间覆盖率最高,MMRM和MI高估疗效差异,95%置信区间覆盖率较低。所有方法的95%置信区间宽度相当。结论 分析多种缺失机制共存,特别是含有非随机缺失的纵向缺失数据时,MMRM和MI的统计性能有所降低,可采用基于对照的PMM进行敏感性分析,但需要注意其具体假设,防止估计过于保守。     

Methods to Account for Attrition in Longitudinal Data: Do They Work? A Simulation Study

Attrition threatens the internal validity of cohort studies. Epidemiologists use various imputation and weighting methods to limit bias due to attrition. However, the ability of these methods to correct for attrition bias has not been tested. We simulated a cohort of 300 subjects using 500 computer replications to determine whether regression imputation, individual weighting, or multiple imputation is useful to reduce attrition bias. We compared these results to a complete subject analysis. Our logistic regression model included a binary exposure and two confounders. We generated 10, 25, and 40% attrition through three missing data mechanisms: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR), and used four covariance matrices to vary attrition. We compared true and estimated mean odds ratios (ORs), standard deviations (SDs), and coverage. With data MCAR and MAR for all attrition rates, the complete subject analysis produced results at least as valid as those from the imputation and weighting methods. With data MNAR, no method provided unbiased estimates of the OR at attrition rates of 25 or 40%. When observations are not MAR or MCAR, imputation and weighting methods may not effectively reduce attrition bias.     

Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete‐case analysis for missing covariate values

When missing data occur in one or more covariates in a regression model, multiple imputation (MI) is widely advocated as an improvement over complete‐case analysis (CC). We use theoretical arguments and simulation studies to compare these methods with MI implemented under a missing at random assumption. When data are missing completely at random, both methods have negligible bias, and MI is more efficient than CC across a wide range of scenarios. For other missing data mechanisms, bias arises in one or both methods. In our simulation setting, CC is biased towards the null when data are missing at random. However, when missingness is independent of the outcome given the covariates, CC has negligible bias and MI is biased away from the null. With more general missing data mechanisms, bias tends to be smaller for MI than for CC. Since MI is not always better than CC for missing covariate problems, the choice of method should take into account what is known about the missing data mechanism in a particular substantive application. Importantly, the choice of method should not be based on comparison of standard errors. We propose new ways to understand empirical differences between MI and CC, which may provide insights into the appropriateness of the assumptions underlying each method, and we propose a new index for assessing the likely gain in precision from MI: the fraction of incomplete cases among the observed values of a covariate (FICO). Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Missing data strategies for time-varying confounders in comparative effectiveness studies of non-missing time-varying exposures and right-censored outcomes

The treatment of missing data in comparative effectiveness studies with right-censored outcomes and time-varying covariates is challenging because of the multilevel structure of the data. In particular, the performance of an accessible method like multiple imputation (MI) under an imputation model that ignores the multilevel structure is unknown and has not been compared to complete-case (CC) and single imputation methods that are most commonly applied in this context. Through an extensive simulation study, we compared statistical properties among CC analysis, last value carried forward, mean imputation, the use of missing indicators, and MI-based approaches with and without auxiliary variables under an extended Cox model when the interest lies in characterizing relationships between non-missing time-varying exposures and right-censored outcomes. MI demonstrated favorable properties under a moderate missing-at-random condition (absolute bias <0.1) and outperformed CC and single imputation methods, even when the MI method did not account for correlated observations in the imputation model. The performance of MI decreased with increasing complexity such as when the missing data mechanism involved the exposure of interest, but was still preferred over other methods considered and performed well in the presence of strong auxiliary variables. We recommend considering MI that ignores the multilevel structure in the imputation model when data are missing in a time-varying confounder, incorporating variables associated with missingness in the MI models as well as conducting sensitivity analyses across plausible assumptions.     

A Bayesian framework for health economic evaluation in studies with missing data

Health economics studies with missing data are increasingly using approaches such as multiple imputation that assume that the data are “missing at random.” This assumption is often questionable, as—even given the observed data—the probability that data are missing may reflect the true, unobserved outcomes, such as the patients' true health status. In these cases, methodological guidelines recommend sensitivity analyses to recognise data may be “missing not at random” (MNAR), and call for the development of practical, accessible approaches for exploring the robustness of conclusions to MNAR assumptions. Little attention has been paid to the problem that data may be MNAR in health economics in general and in cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) in particular. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian framework for CEA where outcome or cost data are missing. Our framework includes a practical, accessible approach to sensitivity analysis that allows the analyst to draw on expert opinion. We illustrate the framework in a CEA comparing an endovascular strategy with open repair for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, and provide software tools to implement this approach.     

Dropouts in the AB/BA crossover design

Missing data arise in crossover trials, as they do in any form of clinical trial. Several papers have addressed the problems that missing data create, although almost all of these assume that the probability that a planned observation is missing does not depend on the value that would have been observed; that is, the data are missing at random (MAR). In many applications, this assumption is likely to be untenable; in which case, the data are missing not at random (MNAR). We investigate the effect on estimates of the treatment effect that assume data are MAR when data are actually MNAR. We also propose using the assumption of no carryover treatment effect, which is usually required for this design, to permit the estimation of a treatment effect when data are MNAR. The results are applied to a trial comparing two treatments for neuropathic pain and show that the estimate of treatment effect is sensitive to the assumption of MAR.     

Correction of bias from non‐random missing longitudinal data using auxiliary information

Missing data are common in longitudinal studies due to drop‐out, loss to follow‐up, and death. Likelihood‐based mixed effects models for longitudinal data give valid estimates when the data are missing at random (MAR). These assumptions, however, are not testable without further information. In some studies, there is additional information available in the form of an auxiliary variable known to be correlated with the missing outcome of interest. Availability of such auxiliary information provides us with an opportunity to test the MAR assumption. If the MAR assumption is violated, such information can be utilized to reduce or eliminate bias when the missing data process depends on the unobserved outcome through the auxiliary information. We compare two methods of utilizing the auxiliary information: joint modeling of the outcome of interest and the auxiliary variable, and multiple imputation (MI). Simulation studies are performed to examine the two methods. The likelihood‐based joint modeling approach is consistent and most efficient when correctly specified. However, mis‐specification of the joint distribution can lead to biased results. MI is slightly less efficient than a correct joint modeling approach and can also be biased when the imputation model is mis‐specified, though it is more robust to mis‐specification of the imputation distribution when all the variables affecting the missing data mechanism and the missing outcome are included in the imputation model. An example is presented from a dementia screening study. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Properties of the full random-effect modeling approach with missing covariate data

During drug development, a key step is the identification of relevant covariates predicting between-subject variations in drug response. The full random effects model (FREM) is one of the full-covariate approaches used to identify relevant covariates in nonlinear mixed effects models. Here we explore the ability of FREM to handle missing (both missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR)) covariate data and compare it to the full fixed-effects model (FFEM) approach, applied either with complete case analysis or mean imputation. A global health dataset (20 421 children) was used to develop a FREM describing the changes of height for age Z-score (HAZ) over time. Simulated datasets (n = 1000) were generated with variable rates of missing (MCAR) covariate data (0%-90%) and different proportions of missing (MAR) data condition on either observed covariates or predicted HAZ. The three methods were used to re-estimate model and compared in terms of bias and precision which showed that FREM had only minor increases in bias and minor loss of precision at increasing percentages of missing (MCAR) covariate data and performed similarly in the MAR scenarios. Conversely, the FFEM approaches either collapsed at $$70% of missing (MCAR) covariate data (FFEM complete case analysis) or had large bias increases and loss of precision (FFEM with mean imputation). Our results suggest that FREM is an appropriate approach to covariate modeling for datasets with missing (MCAR and MAR) covariate data, such as in global health studies.     

Joint Longitudinal Models for Dealing With Missing at Random Data in Trial-Based Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesIn trial-based economic evaluation, some individuals are typically associated with missing data at some time point, so that their corresponding aggregated outcomes (eg, quality-adjusted life-years) cannot be evaluated. Restricting the analysis to the complete cases is inefficient and can result in biased estimates, while imputation methods are often implemented under a missing at random (MAR) assumption. We propose the use of joint longitudinal models to extend standard approaches by taking into account the longitudinal structure to improve the estimation of the targeted quantities under MAR.MethodsWe compare the results from methods that handle missingness at an aggregated (case deletion, baseline imputation, and joint aggregated models) and disaggregated (joint longitudinal models) level under MAR. The methods are compared using a simulation study and applied to data from 2 real case studies.ResultsSimulations show that, according to which data affect the missingness process, aggregated methods may lead to biased results, while joint longitudinal models lead to valid inferences under MAR. The analysis of the 2 case studies support these results as both parameter estimates and cost-effectiveness results vary based on the amount of data incorporated into the model.ConclusionsOur analyses suggest that methods implemented at the aggregated level are potentially biased under MAR as they ignore the information from the partially observed follow-up data. This limitation can be overcome by extending the analysis to a longitudinal framework using joint models, which can incorporate all the available evidence.     

Imputing estrogen receptor (ER) status in a population‐based cancer registry: a sensitivity analysis

Breast cancers are clinically heterogeneous based on tumor markers. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program provides baseline data on these tumor markers for reporting cancer burden and trends over time in the US general population. These tumor markers, however, are often prone to missing observations. In particular, estrogen receptor (ER) status, a key biomarker in the study of breast cancer, has been collected since 1992 but historically was not well‐reported, with missingness rates as high as 25% in early years. Previous methods used to correct estimates of breast cancer incidence or ER‐related odds or prevalence ratios for unknown ER status have relied on a missing‐at‐random (MAR) assumption. In this paper, we explore the sensitivity of these key estimates to departures from MAR. We develop a predictive mean matching procedure that can be used to multiply impute missing ER status under either an MAR or a missing not at random assumption and apply it to the SEER breast cancer data (1992–2012). The imputation procedure uses the predictive power of the rich set of covariates available in the SEER registry while also allowing us to investigate the impact of departures from MAR. We find some differences in inference under the two assumptions, although the magnitude of differences tends to be small. For the types of analyses typically of primary interest, we recommend imputing SEER breast cancer biomarkers under an MAR assumption, given the small apparent differences under MAR and missing not at random assumptions. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Doubly robust generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data

A popular method for analysing repeated‐measures data is generalized estimating equations (GEE). When response data are missing at random (MAR), two modifications of GEE use inverse‐probability weighting and imputation. The weighted GEE (WGEE) method involves weighting observations by their inverse probability of being observed, according to some assumed missingness model. Imputation methods involve filling in missing observations with values predicted by an assumed imputation model. WGEE are consistent when the data are MAR and the dropout model is correctly specified. Imputation methods are consistent when the data are MAR and the imputation model is correctly specified. Recently, doubly robust (DR) methods have been developed. These involve both a model for probability of missingness and an imputation model for the expectation of each missing observation, and are consistent when either is correct. We describe DR GEE, and illustrate their use on simulated data. We also analyse the INITIO randomized clinical trial of HIV therapy allowing for MAR dropout. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

不同缺失机制并存时应答偏倚校正方法在医保学生医疗费用调查中的应用

在研究2012年太原市城镇居民医保参保学生(幼儿园至大学)的医疗费用及其影响因素时, 发现因变量数据中同时存在随机无应答偏倚(随机缺失)和选择性偏倚(非随机缺失), 为此本研究提出一个多重填补与样本选择模型相结合的两阶段策略, 同时校正这两种偏倚。实例中经过两阶段抽样、问卷调查, 整理获得合格数据1 190例, 因变量中存在2.52%非随机缺失和7.14%随机缺失。第一阶段利用完整数据对随机缺失进行多重填补, 第二阶段对填补后的数据利用样本选择模型校正非随机缺失, 同时建立多因素分析模型。通过1 000次两阶段校正模拟研究比较4种不同多重填补方法, 得出在此缺失比例组合下预测均数匹配法与样本选择模型结合的校正效果最优。最终在实例分析中得到影响太原市居民医保参保学生年度医疗费用的因素有被调查者类型、家庭年毛收入、对医疗费用水平的承受程度、慢性病、到社区卫生服务或私人诊所就诊、到医院门诊就诊、住院、是否有应住院而未住院情况、自我医疗、可接受的自付医疗费用比例。表明应用多重填补与样本选择模型相结合的两阶段校正方法, 可有效校正调查数据因变量中存在的随机无应答偏倚和选择性偏倚。     

Copula selection models for non-Gaussian outcomes that are missing not at random

Missing not at random (MNAR) data pose key challenges for statistical inference because the substantive model of interest is typically not identifiable without imposing further (eg, distributional) assumptions. Selection models have been routinely used for handling MNAR by jointly modeling the outcome and selection variables and typically assuming that these follow a bivariate normal distribution. Recent studies have advocated parametric selection approaches, for example, estimated by multiple imputation and maximum likelihood, that are more robust to departures from the normality assumption compared with those assuming that nonresponse and outcome are jointly normally distributed. However, the proposed methods have been mostly restricted to a specific joint distribution (eg, bivariate t-distribution). This paper discusses a flexible copula-based selection approach (which accommodates a wide range of non-Gaussian outcome distributions and offers great flexibility in the choice of functional form specifications for both the outcome and selection equations) and proposes a flexible imputation procedure that generates plausible imputed values from the copula selection model. A simulation study characterizes the relative performance of the copula model compared with the most commonly used selection models for estimating average treatment effects with MNAR data. We illustrate the methods in the REFLUX study, which evaluates the effect of laparoscopic surgery on long-term quality of life in patients with reflux disease. We provide software code for implementing the proposed copula framework using the R package GJRM .     

Two-part hidden Markov models for semicontinuous longitudinal data with nonignorable missing covariates

This study develops a two-part hidden Markov model (HMM) for analyzing semicontinuous longitudinal data in the presence of missing covariates. The proposed model manages a semicontinuous variable by splitting it into two random variables: a binary indicator for determining the occurrence of excess zeros at all occasions and a continuous random variable for examining its actual level. For the continuous longitudinal response, an HMM is proposed to describe the relationship between the observation and unobservable finite-state transition processes. The HMM consists of two major components. The first component is a transition model for investigating how potential covariates influence the probabilities of transitioning from one hidden state to another. The second component is a conditional regression model for examining the state-specific effects of covariates on the response. A shared random effect is introduced to each part of the model to accommodate possible unobservable heterogeneity among observation processes and the nonignorability of missing covariates. A Bayesian adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) procedure is developed to conduct simultaneous variable selection and estimation. The proposed methodology is applied to a study on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. New insights into the pathology of Alzheimer's disease and its potential risk factors are obtained.     

Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic studies commonly estimate associations between predictors (risk factors) and outcome. Most software automatically exclude subjects with missing values. This commonly causes bias because missing values seldom occur completely at random (MCAR) but rather selectively based on other (observed) variables, missing at random (MAR). Multiple imputation (MI) of missing predictor values using all observed information including outcome is advocated to deal with selective missing values. This seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. METHODS: We tested this hypothesis using data from a study on diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We selected five predictors of pulmonary embolism without missing values. Their regression coefficients and standard errors (SEs) estimated from the original sample were considered as "true" values. We assigned missing values to these predictors--both MCAR and MAR--and repeated this 1,000 times using simulations. Per simulation we multiple imputed the missing values without and with the outcome, and compared the regression coefficients and SEs to the truth. RESULTS: Regression coefficients based on MI including outcome were close to the truth. MI without outcome yielded very biased--underestimated--coefficients. SEs and coverage of the 90% confidence intervals were not different between MI with and without outcome. Results were the same for MCAR and MAR. CONCLUSION: For all types of missing values, imputation of missing predictor values using the outcome is preferred over imputation without outcome and is no self-fulfilling prophecy.     

Loss to Follow-Up in Cohort Studies: How Much is Too Much?

Loss to follow-up is problematic in most cohort studies and often leads to bias. Although guidelines suggest acceptable follow-up rates, the authors are unaware of studies that test the validity of these recommendations. The objective of this study was to determine whether the recommended follow-up thresholds of 60-80% are associated with biased effects in cohort studies. A simulation study was conducted using 1000 computer replications of a cohort of 500 observations. The logistic regression model included a binary exposure and three confounders. Varied correlation structures of the data represented various levels of confounding. Differing levels of loss to follow-up were generated through three mechanisms: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR). The authors found no important bias with levels of loss that varied from 5 to 60% when loss to follow-up was related to MCAR or MAR mechanisms. However, when observations were lost to follow-up based on a MNAR mechanism, the authors found seriously biased estimates of the odds ratios with low levels of loss to follow-up. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies rarely occurs randomly. Therefore, when planning a cohort study, one should assume that loss to follow-up is MNAR and attempt to achieve the maximum follow-up rate possible.     

Meta‐analysis with missing study‐level sample variance data

We consider a study‐level meta‐analysis with a normally distributed outcome variable and possibly unequal study‐level variances, where the object of inference is the difference in means between a treatment and control group. A common complication in such an analysis is missing sample variances for some studies. A frequently used approach is to impute the weighted (by sample size) mean of the observed variances (mean imputation). Another approach is to include only those studies with variances reported (complete case analysis). Both mean imputation and complete case analysis are only valid under the missing‐completely‐at‐random assumption, and even then the inverse variance weights produced are not necessarily optimal. We propose a multiple imputation method employing gamma meta‐regression to impute the missing sample variances. Our method takes advantage of study‐level covariates that may be used to provide information about the missing data. Through simulation studies, we show that multiple imputation, when the imputation model is correctly specified, is superior to competing methods in terms of confidence interval coverage probability and type I error probability when testing a specified group difference. Finally, we describe a similar approach to handling missing variances in cross‐over studies. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multiple imputation methods for bivariate outcomes in cluster randomised trials

Missing observations are common in cluster randomised trials. The problem is exacerbated when modelling bivariate outcomes jointly, as the proportion of complete cases is often considerably smaller than the proportion having either of the outcomes fully observed. Approaches taken to handling such missing data include the following: complete case analysis, single‐level multiple imputation that ignores the clustering, multiple imputation with a fixed effect for each cluster and multilevel multiple imputation. We contrasted the alternative approaches to handling missing data in a cost‐effectiveness analysis that uses data from a cluster randomised trial to evaluate an exercise intervention for care home residents. We then conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of these approaches on bivariate continuous outcomes, in terms of confidence interval coverage and empirical bias in the estimated treatment effects. Missing‐at‐random clustered data scenarios were simulated following a full‐factorial design. Across all the missing data mechanisms considered, the multiple imputation methods provided estimators with negligible bias, while complete case analysis resulted in biased treatment effect estimates in scenarios where the randomised treatment arm was associated with missingness. Confidence interval coverage was generally in excess of nominal levels (up to 99.8%) following fixed‐effects multiple imputation and too low following single‐level multiple imputation. Multilevel multiple imputation led to coverage levels of approximately 95% throughout. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.