Investigating the missing data mechanism in quality of life outcomes: a comparison of approaches

Background: Missing data is classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Knowing the mechanism is useful in identifying the most appropriate analysis. The first aim was to compare different methods for identifying this missing data mechanism to determine if they gave consistent conclusions. Secondly, to investigate whether the reminder-response data can be utilised to help identify the missing data mechanism. Methods: Five clinical trial datasets that employed a reminder system at follow-up were used. Some quality of life questionnaires were initially missing, but later recovered through reminders. Four methods of determining the missing data mechanism were applied. Two response data scenarios were considered. Firstly, immediate data only; secondly, all observed responses (including reminder-response). Results: In three of five trials the hypothesis tests found evidence against the MCAR assumption. Logistic regression suggested MAR, but was able to use the reminder-collected data to highlight potential MNAR data in two trials. Conclusion: The four methods were consistent in determining the missingness mechanism. One hypothesis test was preferred as it is applicable with intermittent missingness. Some inconsistencies between the two data scenarios were found. Ignoring the reminder data could potentially give a distorted view of the missingness mechanism. Utilising reminder data allowed the possibility of MNAR to be considered.The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. Research Training Fellowship (CZF/1/31

A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are perceived as the gold-standard method for evaluating healthcare interventions, and increasingly include quality of life (QoL) measures. The observed results are susceptible to bias if a substantial proportion of outcome data are missing. The review aimed to determine whether imputation was used to deal with missing QoL outcomes. Methods: A random selection of 285 RCTs published during 2005/6 in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were identified. Results: QoL outcomes were reported in 61 (21%) trials. Six (10%) reported having no missing data, 20 (33%) reported ≤ 10% missing, eleven (18%) 11%–20% missing, and eleven (18%) reported >20% missing. Missingness was unclear in 13 (21%). Missing data were imputed in 19 (31%) of the 61 trials. Imputation was part of the primary analysis in 13 trials, but a sensitivity analysis in six. Last value carried forward was used in 12 trials and multiple imputation in two. Following imputation, the most common analysis method was analysis of covariance (10 trials). Conclusion: The majority of studies did not impute missing data and carried out a complete-case analysis. For those studies that did impute missing data, researchers tended to prefer simpler methods of imputation, despite more sophisticated methods being available.The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. Shona Fielding is also currently funded by the Chief Scientist Office on a Research Training Fellowship (CZF/1/31)

Parameter estimation in Cox models with missing failure indicators and the OPPERA study

In a prospective cohort study, examining all participants for incidence of the condition of interest may be prohibitively expensive. For example, the "gold standard" for diagnosing temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a physical examination by a trained clinician. In large studies, examining all participants in this manner is infeasible. Instead, it is common to use questionnaires to screen for incidence of TMD and perform the "gold standard" examination only on participants who screen positively. Unfortunately, some participants may leave the study before receiving the "gold standard" examination. Within the framework of survival analysis, this results in missing failure indicators. Motivated by the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study, a large cohort study of TMD, we propose a method for parameter estimation in survival models with missing failure indicators. We estimate the probability of being an incident case for those lacking a "gold standard" examination using logistic regression. These estimated probabilities are used to generate multiple imputations of case status for each missing examination that are combined with observed data in appropriate regression models. The variance introduced by the procedure is estimated using multiple imputation. The method can be used to estimate both regression coefficients in Cox proportional hazard models as well as incidence rates using Poisson regression. We simulate data with missing failure indicators and show that our method performs as well as or better than competing methods. Finally, we apply the proposed method to data from the OPPERA study.Comment: Version 4: 23 pages, 0 figure

A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

How to deal with missing longitudinal data in cost of illness analysis in Alzheimer’s disease—suggestions from the GERAS observational study

BACKGROUND: Missing data are a common problem in prospective studies with a long follow-up, and the volume, pattern and reasons for missing data may be relevant when estimating the cost of illness. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different methods for dealing with missing longitudinal cost data and for costing caregiver time on total societal costs in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: GERAS is an 18-month observational study of costs associated with AD. Total societal costs included patient health and social care costs, and caregiver health and informal care costs. Missing data were classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Simulation datasets were generated from baseline data with 10-40 % missing total cost data for each missing data mechanism. Datasets were also simulated to reflect the missing cost data pattern at 18 months using MAR and MNAR assumptions. Naïve and multiple imputation (MI) methods were applied to each dataset and results compared with complete GERAS 18-month cost data. Opportunity and replacement cost approaches were used for caregiver time, which was costed with and without supervision included and with time for working caregivers only being costed. RESULTS: Total costs were available for 99.4 % of 1497 patients at baseline. For MCAR datasets, naïve methods performed as well as MI methods. For MAR, MI methods performed better than naïve methods. All imputation approaches were poor for MNAR data. For all approaches, percentage bias increased with missing data volume. For datasets reflecting 18-month patterns, a combination of imputation methods provided more accurate cost estimates (e.g. bias: -1 % vs -6 % for single MI method), although different approaches to costing caregiver time had a greater impact on estimated costs (29-43 % increase over base case estimate). CONCLUSIONS: Methods used to impute missing cost data in AD will impact on accuracy of cost estimates although varying approaches to costing informal caregiver time has the greatest impact on total costs. Tailoring imputation methods to the reason for missing data will further our understanding of the best analytical approach for studies involving cost outcomes

Missing Data Methods for ICU SOFA Scores in Electronic Health Records Studies: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study

This study utilizes electronic health record data from the Medical University of South Carolina’s intensive care units as the basis for this Monte Carlo simulation study— which compares four methods for handling missing SOFA scores, both at the composite and component levels. The four methods examined herein include: complete case analysis, median imputation, zero imputation (the method recommended by the creators of the SOFA score), and multiple imputation. This study found that zero imputation introduced the most bias across all three outcomes studied, and therefore is not recommended. Complete case analysis, or ignoring missing data, caused varying amounts of bias—as did median imputation. Multiple imputation, on the other hand, performed well for all three outcomes studied, both at the composite and component levels, demonstrating this method’s superior value in the presence of missing SOFA scores

A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials

The authors would like to thank Professor Adrian Grant and the team at the University of Aberdeen (Professor Craig Ramsay, Janice Cruden, Charles Boachie, Professor Marion Campbell and Seonaidh Cotton) who kindly allowed the REFLUX dataset to be used for this work, and Eldon Spackman for kindly sharing the Stata (R) code for calculating the probability that an intervention is cost effective following MI. The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their comments, which greatly improved this paper. M. G. is recipient of a Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship in Economics of Health (grant number: MR/K02177X/1). I. R. W. was supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme U105260558]. No specific funding was obtained to produce this paper. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Missing data are a frequent problem in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) within a randomised controlled trial. Inappropriate methods to handle missing data can lead to misleading results and ultimately can affect the decision of whether an intervention is good value for money. This article provides practical guidance on how to handle missing data in within-trial CEAs following a principled approach: (i) the analysis should be based on a plausible assumption for the missing data mechanism, i.e. whether the probability that data are missing is independent of or dependent on the observed and/or unobserved values; (ii) the method chosen for the base-case should fit with the assumed mechanism; and (iii) sensitivity analysis should be conducted to explore to what extent the results change with the assumption made. This approach is implemented in three stages, which are described in detail: (1) descriptive analysis to inform the assumption on the missing data mechanism; (2) how to choose between alternative methods given their underlying assumptions; and (3) methods for sensitivity analysis. The case study illustrates how to apply this approach in practice, including software code. The article concludes with recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research.Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship in Economics of Health MR/K02177X/1Medical Research Council UK (MRC) U105260558Medical Research Council UK (MRC) MC_U105260558 MR/K02177X/