Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Methodology

Is using multiple imputation better than complete case analysis for estimating a prevalence (risk) difference in randomized controlled trials when binary outcome observations are missing?

Authors: Mavuto Mukaka, Sarah A. White, Dianne J. Terlouw, Victor Mwapasa, Linda Kalilani-Phiri, E. Brian Faragher

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Missing outcomes can seriously impair the ability to make correct inferences from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Complete case (CC) analysis is commonly used, but it reduces sample size and is perceived to lead to reduced statistical efficiency of estimates while increasing the potential for bias. As multiple imputation (MI) methods preserve sample size, they are generally viewed as the preferred analytical approach.
We examined this assumption, comparing the performance of CC and MI methods to determine risk difference (RD) estimates in the presence of missing binary outcomes. We conducted simulation studies of 5000 simulated data sets with 50 imputations of RCTs with one primary follow-up endpoint at different underlying levels of RD (3–25 %) and missing outcomes (5–30 %).

Results

For missing at random (MAR) or missing completely at random (MCAR) outcomes, CC method estimates generally remained unbiased and achieved precision similar to or better than MI methods, and high statistical coverage. Missing not at random (MNAR) scenarios yielded invalid inferences with both methods. Effect size estimate bias was reduced in MI methods by always including group membership even if this was unrelated to missingness. Surprisingly, under MAR and MCAR conditions in the assessed scenarios, MI offered no statistical advantage over CC methods.

Conclusion

While MI must inherently accompany CC methods for intention-to-treat analyses, these findings endorse CC methods for per protocol risk difference analyses in these conditions. These findings provide an argument for the use of the CC approach to always complement MI analyses, with the usual caveat that the validity of the mechanism for missingness be thoroughly discussed. More importantly, researchers should strive to collect as much data as possible.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Machekano RN, Dorsey G, Hubbard A. Efficacy studies of malaria treatments in Africa: efficient estimation with missing indicators of failure. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:191–206.CrossRefPubMed Machekano RN, Dorsey G, Hubbard A. Efficacy studies of malaria treatments in Africa: efficient estimation with missing indicators of failure. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:191–206.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1:368–76.CrossRefPubMed Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1:368–76.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials, Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials, Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
7.
go back to reference Allison PD. Missing data. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications; 2001. Allison PD. Missing data. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications; 2001.
8.
go back to reference Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1087–91.CrossRefPubMed Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1087–91.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
go back to reference Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review. Test (Madr). 2009;18:1–43.CrossRef Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review. Test (Madr). 2009;18:1–43.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference White IR, Carlin JB. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010;29:2920–31.CrossRefPubMed White IR, Carlin JB. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010;29:2920–31.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Magder LS. Simple approaches to assess the possible impact of missing outcome information on estimates of risk ratios, odds ratios, and risk differences. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:411–21.CrossRefPubMed Magder LS. Simple approaches to assess the possible impact of missing outcome information on estimates of risk ratios, odds ratios, and risk differences. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:411–21.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Groenwold RH, Donders AR, Roes KC, Harrell Jr FE, Moons KG. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;175:210–7.CrossRefPubMed Groenwold RH, Donders AR, Roes KC, Harrell Jr FE, Moons KG. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;175:210–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Bell DJ, Nyirongo SK, Mukaka M, Zijlstra EE, Plowe CV, Molyneux ME, Ward SA, Winstanley PA. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine-based combinations for malaria: a randomised blinded trial to compare efficacy, safety and selection of resistance in Malawi. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1578. Bell DJ, Nyirongo SK, Mukaka M, Zijlstra EE, Plowe CV, Molyneux ME, Ward SA, Winstanley PA. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine-based combinations for malaria: a randomised blinded trial to compare efficacy, safety and selection of resistance in Malawi. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1578.
16.
go back to reference Marshall A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. Comparison of techniques for handling missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:7. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-7. Marshall A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. Comparison of techniques for handling missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:7. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2288-10-7.
17.
go back to reference Royston P, White IR. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–20.CrossRef Royston P, White IR. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–20.CrossRef
18.
19.
go back to reference Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337–44.CrossRefPubMed Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337–44.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: CRC Press; 1997.CrossRef Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: CRC Press; 1997.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.CrossRef Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference White IR, Daniel R, Royston P. Avoiding bias due to perfect prediction in multiple imputation of incomplete categorical variables. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2010;54:2267–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral White IR, Daniel R, Royston P. Avoiding bias due to perfect prediction in multiple imputation of incomplete categorical variables. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2010;54:2267–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Rezvan PH, Lee KJ, Simpson JA. The rise of multiple imputation: a review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:30.CrossRef Rezvan PH, Lee KJ, Simpson JA. The rise of multiple imputation: a review of the reporting and implementation of the method in medical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:30.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Liublinska V, Rubin DB. Re: "dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies". Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:357–8. author reply 358–359.CrossRefPubMed Liublinska V, Rubin DB. Re: "dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies". Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:357–8. author reply 358–359.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Is using multiple imputation better than complete case analysis for estimating a prevalence (risk) difference in randomized controlled trials when binary outcome observations are missing?
Authors
Mavuto Mukaka
Sarah A. White
Dianne J. Terlouw
Victor Mwapasa
Linda Kalilani-Phiri
E. Brian Faragher
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1473-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue