Missing binary outcomes under covariate‐dependent missingness in cluster randomised trials

Missing outcomes are a commonly occurring problem for cluster randomised trials, which can lead to biased and inefficient inference if ignored or handled inappropriately. Two approaches for analysing such trials are cluster‐level analysis and individual‐level analysis. In this study, we assessed the performance of unadjusted cluster‐level analysis, baseline covariate‐adjusted cluster‐level analysis, random effects logistic regression and generalised estimating equations when binary outcomes are missing under a baseline covariate‐dependent missingness mechanism. Missing outcomes were handled using complete records analysis and multilevel multiple imputation. We analytically show that cluster‐level analyses for estimating risk ratio using complete records are valid if the true data generating model has log link and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. We performed a simulation study considering four different scenarios, depending on whether the missingness mechanisms are the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between intervention group and baseline covariate in the outcome model. On the basis of the simulation study and analytical results, we give guidance on the conditions under which each approach is valid. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies

Although missing outcome data are an important problem in randomized trials and observational studies, methods to address this issue can be difficult to apply. Using simulated data, the authors compared 3 methods to handle missing outcome data: 1) complete case analysis; 2) single imputation; and 3) multiple imputation (all 3 with and without covariate adjustment). Simulated scenarios focused on continuous or dichotomous missing outcome data from randomized trials or observational studies. When outcomes were missing at random, single and multiple imputations yielded unbiased estimates after covariate adjustment. Estimates obtained by complete case analysis with covariate adjustment were unbiased as well, with coverage close to 95%. When outcome data were missing not at random, all methods gave biased estimates, but handling missing outcome data by means of 1 of the 3 methods reduced bias compared with a complete case analysis without covariate adjustment. Complete case analysis with covariate adjustment and multiple imputation yield similar estimates in the event of missing outcome data, as long as the same predictors of missingness are included. Hence, complete case analysis with covariate adjustment can and should be used as the analysis of choice more often. Multiple imputation, in addition, can accommodate the missing-not-at-random scenario more flexibly, making it especially suited for sensitivity analyses.     

Reference‐based multiple imputation for missing data sensitivity analyses in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis

Missing data are a common issue in cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) alongside randomised trials and are often addressed assuming the data are ‘missing at random’. However, this assumption is often questionable, and sensitivity analyses are required to assess the implications of departures from missing at random. Reference‐based multiple imputation provides an attractive approach for conducting such sensitivity analyses, because missing data assumptions are framed in an intuitive way by making reference to other trial arms. For example, a plausible not at random mechanism in a placebo‐controlled trial would be to assume that participants in the experimental arm who dropped out stop taking their treatment and have similar outcomes to those in the placebo arm. Drawing on the increasing use of this approach in other areas, this paper aims to extend and illustrate the reference‐based multiple imputation approach in CEA. It introduces the principles of reference‐based imputation and proposes an extension to the CEA context. The method is illustrated in the CEA of the CoBalT trial evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy for treatment‐resistant depression. Stata code is provided. We find that reference‐based multiple imputation provides a relevant and accessible framework for assessing the robustness of CEA conclusions to different missing data assumptions.     

Handling incomplete correlated continuous and binary outcomes in meta‐analysis of individual participant data

Meta‐analysis of individual participant data (IPD) is increasingly utilised to improve the estimation of treatment effects, particularly among different participant subgroups. An important concern in IPD meta‐analysis relates to partially or completely missing outcomes for some studies, a problem exacerbated when interest is on multiple discrete and continuous outcomes. When leveraging information from incomplete correlated outcomes across studies, the fully observed outcomes may provide important information about the incompleteness of the other outcomes. In this paper, we compare two models for handling incomplete continuous and binary outcomes in IPD meta‐analysis: a joint hierarchical model and a sequence of full conditional mixed models. We illustrate how these approaches incorporate the correlation across the multiple outcomes and the between‐study heterogeneity when addressing the missing data. Simulations characterise the performance of the methods across a range of scenarios which differ according to the proportion and type of missingness, strength of correlation between outcomes and the number of studies. The joint model provided confidence interval coverage consistently closer to nominal levels and lower mean squared error compared with the fully conditional approach across the scenarios considered. Methods are illustrated in a meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator devices alone to implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator combined with cardiac resynchronisation therapy for treating patients with chronic heart failure. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

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.     

Missing data in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: An incomplete journey

Cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted alongside randomised trials provide key evidence for informing healthcare decision making, but missing data pose substantive challenges. Recently, there have been a number of developments in methods and guidelines addressing missing data in trials. However, it is unclear whether these developments have permeated CEA practice. This paper critically reviews the extent of and methods used to address missing data in recently published trial‐based CEA. Issues of the Health Technology Assessment journal from 2013 to 2015 were searched. Fifty‐two eligible studies were identified. Missing data were very common; the median proportion of trial participants with complete cost‐effectiveness data was 63% (interquartile range: 47%–81%). The most common approach for the primary analysis was to restrict analysis to those with complete data (43%), followed by multiple imputation (30%). Half of the studies conducted some sort of sensitivity analyses, but only 2 (4%) considered possible departures from the missing‐at‐random assumption. Further improvements are needed to address missing data in cost‐effectiveness analyses conducted alongside randomised trials. These should focus on limiting the extent of missing data, choosing an appropriate method for the primary analysis that is valid under contextually plausible assumptions, and conducting sensitivity analyses to departures from the missing‐at‐random assumption.     

Recovery of information from multiple imputation: a simulation study

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Multiple imputation is becoming increasingly popular for handling missing data. However, it is often implemented without adequate consideration of whether it offers any advantage over complete case analysis for the research question of interest, or whether potential gains may be offset by bias from a poorly fitting imputation model, particularly as the amount of missing data increases. METHODS: Simulated datasets (n = 1000) drawn from a synthetic population were used to explore information recovery from multiple imputation in estimating the coefficient of a binary exposure variable when various proportions of data (10-90%) were set missing at random in a highly-skewed continuous covariate or in the binary exposure. Imputation was performed using multivariate normal imputation (MVNI), with a simple or zero-skewness log transformation to manage non-normality. Bias, precision, mean-squared error and coverage for a set of regression parameter estimates were compared between multiple imputation and complete case analyses. RESULTS: For missingness in the continuous covariate, multiple imputation produced less bias and greater precision for the effect of the binary exposure variable, compared with complete case analysis, with larger gains in precision with more missing data. However, even with only moderate missingness, large bias and substantial under-coverage were apparent in estimating the continuous covariate's effect when skewness was not adequately addressed. For missingness in the binary covariate, all estimates had negligible bias but gains in precision from multiple imputation were minimal, particularly for the coefficient of the binary exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple imputation can be useful if covariates required for confounding adjustment are missing, benefits are likely to be minimal when data are missing in the exposure variable of interest. Furthermore, when there are large amounts of missingness, multiple imputation can become unreliable and introduce bias not present in a complete case analysis if the imputation model is not appropriate. Epidemiologists dealing with missing data should keep in mind the potential limitations as well as the potential benefits of multiple imputation. Further work is needed to provide clearer guidelines on effective application of this method.     

Propensity score estimation with missing values using a multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) approach

Propensity scores have been used widely as a bias reduction method to estimate the treatment effect in nonrandomized studies. Since many covariates are generally included in the model for estimating the propensity scores, the proportion of subjects with at least one missing covariate could be large. While many methods have been proposed for propensity score‐based estimation in the presence of missing covariates, little has been published comparing the performance of these methods. In this article we propose a novel method called multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) and compare it with the naive estimator (ignoring propensity score) and three commonly used methods of handling missing covariates in propensity score‐based estimation (separate estimation of propensity scores within each pattern of missing data, multiple imputation and discarding missing data) under different mechanisms of missing data and degree of correlation among covariates. Simulation shows that all adjusted estimators are much less biased than the naive estimator. Under certain conditions MIMP provides benefits (smaller bias and mean‐squared error) compared with existing alternatives. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multiple imputation of missing repeated outcome measurements did not add to linear mixed-effects models

ObjectiveTo assess the added value of multiple imputation (MI) of missing repeated outcomes measures in longitudinal data sets analyzed with linear mixed-effects (LME) models.Study Design and SettingData were used from a trial on the effects of Rosuvastatin on rate of change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT). The reference treatment effect was derived from a complete data set. Scenarios and proportions of missing values in CIMT measurements were applied and LME analyses were used before and after MI. The added value of MI, in terms of bias and precision, was assessed using the mean-squared error (MSE) of the treatment effects and coverage of the 95% confidence interval.ResultsThe reference treatment effect was ?0.0177 mm/y. The MSEs for LME analysis without and with MI were similar in scenarios with up to 40% missing values. Coverage was large in all scenarios and was similar for LME with and without MI.ConclusionOur study empirically shows that MI of missing end point data before LME analyses does not increase precision in the estimated rate of change in the end point. Hence, MI had no added value in this setting and standard LME modeling remains the method of choice.     

Reporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade?

Purpose

Missing data are a major problem in the analysis of data from randomised trials affecting power and potentially producing biased treatment effects. Specifically focussing on quality of life outcomes, we aimed to report the amount of missing data, whether imputation was used and what methods and was the missing mechanism discussed from four leading medical journals and compare the picture to our previous review nearly a decade ago.

Methods

A random selection (50 %) of all RCTS published during 2013–2014 in BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM was obtained. RCTs reported in research letters, cluster RCTs, non-randomised designs, review articles and meta-analysis were excluded.

Results

We included 87 RCTs in the review of which 35 % the amount of missing primary QoL data was unclear, 31 (36 %) used imputation. Only 23 % discussed the missing data mechanism. Nearly half used complete case analysis. Reporting was more unclear for secondary QoL outcomes. Compared to the previous review, multiple imputation was used more prominently but mainly in sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Inadequate reporting and handling of missing QoL data in RCTs are still an issue. There is a large gap between statistical methods research relating to missing data and the use of the methods in applications. A sensitivity analysis should be undertaken to explore the sensitivity of the main results to different missing data assumptions. Medical journals can help to improve the situation by requiring higher standards of reporting and analytical methods to deal with missing data, and by issuing guidance to authors on expected standard.

     

A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

Multivariate meta‐analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple correlated outcomes from randomised trials, and is an alternative to a separate univariate meta‐analysis of each outcome independently. Usually not all trials report all outcomes; furthermore, outcome reporting bias (ORB) within trials, where an outcome is measured and analysed but not reported on the basis of the results, may cause a biased set of the evidence to be available for some outcomes, potentially affecting the significance and direction of meta‐analysis results. The multivariate approach, however, allows one to ‘borrow strength’ across correlated outcomes, to potentially reduce the impact of ORB. Assuming ORB missing data mechanisms, we aim to investigate the magnitude of bias in the pooled treatment effect estimates for multiple outcomes using univariate meta‐analysis, and to determine whether the ‘borrowing of strength’ from multivariate meta‐analysis can reduce the impact of ORB. A simulation study was conducted for a bivariate fixed effect meta‐analysis of two correlated outcomes. The approach is illustrated by application to a Cochrane systematic review. Results show that the ‘borrowing of strength’ from a multivariate meta‐analysis can reduce the impact of ORB on the pooled treatment effect estimates. We also examine the use of the Pearson correlation as a novel approach for dealing with missing within‐study correlations, and provide an extension to bivariate random‐effects models that reduce ORB in the presence of heterogeneity. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unpredictable bias when using the missing indicator method or complete case analysis for missing confounder values: an empirical example

ObjectiveMissing indicator method (MIM) and complete case analysis (CC) are frequently used to handle missing confounder data. Using empirical data, we demonstrated the degree and direction of bias in the effect estimate when using these methods compared with multiple imputation (MI).Study Design and SettingFrom a cohort study, we selected an exposure (marital status), outcome (depression), and confounders (age, sex, and income). Missing values in “income” were created according to different patterns of missingness: missing values were created completely at random and depending on exposure and outcome values. Percentages of missing values ranged from 2.5% to 30%.ResultsWhen missing values were completely random, MIM gave an overestimation of the odds ratio, whereas CC and MI gave unbiased results. MIM and CC gave under- or overestimations when missing values depended on observed values. Magnitude and direction of bias depended on how the missing values were related to exposure and outcome. Bias increased with increasing percentage of missing values.ConclusionMIM should not be used in handling missing confounder data because it gives unpredictable bias of the odds ratio even with small percentages of missing values. CC can be used when missing values are completely random, but it gives loss of statistical power.     

Addressing missing data in confounders when estimating propensity scores for continuous exposures

Propensity score models are frequently used to estimate causal effects in observational studies. One unresolved issue in fitting these models is handling missing values in the propensity score model covariates. As these models usually contain a large set of covariates, using only individuals with complete data significantly decreases the sample size and statistical power. Several missing data imputation approaches have been proposed, including multiple imputation (MI), MI with missingness pattern (MIMP), and treatment mean imputation. Generalized boosted modeling (GBM), which is a nonparametric approach to estimate propensity scores, can automatically handle missingness in the covariates. Although the performance of MI, MIMP, and treatment mean imputation have previously been compared for binary treatments, they have not been compared for continuous exposures or with single imputation and GBM. We compared these approaches in estimating the generalized propensity score (GPS) for a continuous exposure in both a simulation study and in empirical data. Using GBM with the incomplete data to estimate the GPS did not perform well in the simulation. Missing values should be imputed before estimating propensity scores using GBM or any other approach for estimating the GPS.     

Comparison of the missing-indicator method and conditional logistic regression in 1:m matched case-control studies with missing exposure values

The missing-indicator method and conditional logistic regression have been recommended as alternative approaches for data analysis in matched case-control studies with missing exposure values. The authors evaluated the performance of the two methods using Monte Carlo simulation. Data were generated from a 1:m matched design based on McNemar's 2 x 2 tables with four scenarios for missing values: completely-at-random, case-dependent, exposure-dependent, and case/exposure-dependent. In their analysis, the authors used conditional logistic regression for complete pairs and the missing-indicator method for all pairs. For 1:1 matched studies, given no confounding between exposure and disease, the two methods yielded unbiased estimates. Otherwise, conditional logistic regression produced unbiased estimates with empirical confidence interval coverage similar to nominal coverage under the first three missing-value scenarios, whereas the missing-indicator method produced slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. An increased number of matched controls was associated with slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. Under the case/exposure-dependent missing-value scenario, neither method performed satisfactorily; this indicates the need for more sophisticated statistical methods for handling such missing values. Overall, compared with the missing-indicator method, conditional logistic regression provided a slight advantage in terms of bias and coverage probability, at the cost of slightly reduced statistical power and efficiency.     

Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias

In the case in which all subjects are screened using a common test and only a subset of these subjects are tested using a golden standard test, it is well documented that there is a risk for bias, called verification bias. When the test has only two levels (e.g. positive and negative) and we are trying to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the test, we are actually constructing a confidence interval for a binomial proportion. Since it is well documented that this estimation is not trivial even with complete data, we adopt multiple imputation framework for verification bias problem. We propose several imputation procedures for this problem and compare different methods of estimation. We show that our imputation methods are better than the existing methods with regard to nominal coverage and confidence interval length.     

Comparison of methods of handling missing data in individual patient data meta-analyses: an empirical example on antibiotics in children with acute otitis media

What is the influence of various methods of handling missing data (complete case analyses, single imputation within and over trials, and multiple imputations within and over trials) on the subgroup effects of individual patient data meta-analyses? An empirical data set was used to compare these five methods regarding the subgroup results. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine interaction effects (regression coefficients, standard errors, and p values) between subgrouping variables and treatment. Stratified analyses were performed to determine the effects in subgroups (rate ratios, rate differences, and their 95% confidence intervals). Imputation over trials resulted in different regression coefficients and standard errors of the interaction term as compared with imputation within trials and complete case analyses. Significant interaction effects were found for complete case analyses and imputation within trials, whereas imputation over trials often showed no significant interaction effect. Imputation of missing data over trials might lead to bias, because association of covariates might differ across the included studies. Therefore, despite the gain in statistical power, imputation over trials is not recommended. In the authors' empirical example, imputation within trials appears to be the most appropriate approach of handling missing data in individual patient data meta-analyses.     

Missing predictors in models of effect size

Missing data occur frequently in meta-analysis. Reviewers inevitably face decisions about how to handle missing data, especially when predictors in a model of effect size are missing from some of the identified studies. Commonly used methods for missing data such as complete case analysis and mean substitution often yield biased estimates. This article briefly reviews the particular problems missing predictors cause in a meta-analysis, discusses the properties of commonly used missing data methods, and provides suggestions for ways to handle missing predictors when estimating effect size models. Maximum likelihood methods for multivariate normal data and multiple imputation hold the most promise for handling missing predictors in meta-analysis. These two model-based methods apply to a broad set of data situations, are based on sound statistical theory, and utilize all information available to obtain efficient estimators.     

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.     

Missing data in a multi-item instrument were best handled by multiple imputation at the item score level

ObjectivesRegardless of the proportion of missing values, complete-case analysis is most frequently applied, although advanced techniques such as multiple imputation (MI) are available. The objective of this study was to explore the performance of simple and more advanced methods for handling missing data in cases when some, many, or all item scores are missing in a multi-item instrument.Study Design and SettingReal-life missing data situations were simulated in a multi-item variable used as a covariate in a linear regression model. Various missing data mechanisms were simulated with an increasing percentage of missing data. Subsequently, several techniques to handle missing data were applied to decide on the most optimal technique for each scenario. Fitted regression coefficients were compared using the bias and coverage as performance parameters.ResultsMean imputation caused biased estimates in every missing data scenario when data are missing for more than 10% of the subjects. Furthermore, when a large percentage of subjects had missing items (>25%), MI methods applied to the items outperformed methods applied to the total score.ConclusionWe recommend applying MI to the item scores to get the most accurate regression model estimates. Moreover, we advise not to use any form of mean imputation to handle missing data.     

The impact of missing data on analyses of a time-dependent exposure in a longitudinal cohort: a simulation study

Background

Missing data often cause problems in longitudinal cohort studies with repeated follow-up waves. Research in this area has focussed on analyses with missing data in repeated measures of the outcome, from which participants with missing exposure data are typically excluded. We performed a simulation study to compare complete-case analysis with Multiple imputation (MI) for dealing with missing data in an analysis of the association of waist circumference, measured at two waves, and the risk of colorectal cancer (a completely observed outcome).

Methods

We generated 1,000 datasets of 41,476 individuals with values of waist circumference at waves 1 and 2 and times to the events of colorectal cancer and death to resemble the distributions of the data from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study. Three proportions of missing data (15, 30 and 50%) were imposed on waist circumference at wave 2 using three missing data mechanisms: Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), and a realistic and a more extreme covariate-dependent Missing at Random (MAR) scenarios. We assessed the impact of missing data on two epidemiological analyses: 1) the association between change in waist circumference between waves 1 and 2 and the risk of colorectal cancer, adjusted for waist circumference at wave 1; and 2) the association between waist circumference at wave 2 and the risk of colorectal cancer, not adjusted for waist circumference at wave 1.

Results

We observed very little bias for complete-case analysis or MI under all missing data scenarios, and the resulting coverage of interval estimates was near the nominal 95% level. MI showed gains in precision when waist circumference was included as a strong auxiliary variable in the imputation model.

Conclusions

This simulation study, based on data from a longitudinal cohort study, demonstrates that there is little gain in performing MI compared to a complete-case analysis in the presence of up to 50% missing data for the exposure of interest when the data are MCAR, or missing dependent on covariates. MI will result in some gain in precision if a strong auxiliary variable that is not in the analysis model is included in the imputation model.