Cargando…
Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials
BACKGROUND: Attrition, which leads to missing data, is a common problem in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where groups of patients rather than individuals are randomized. Standard multiple imputation (MI) strategies may not be appropriate to impute missing data from CRTs since they assume indepen...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21324148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-18 |
_version_ | 1782200122777534464 |
---|---|
author | Ma, Jinhui Akhtar-Danesh, Noori Dolovich, Lisa Thabane, Lehana |
author_facet | Ma, Jinhui Akhtar-Danesh, Noori Dolovich, Lisa Thabane, Lehana |
author_sort | Ma, Jinhui |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Attrition, which leads to missing data, is a common problem in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where groups of patients rather than individuals are randomized. Standard multiple imputation (MI) strategies may not be appropriate to impute missing data from CRTs since they assume independent data. In this paper, under the assumption of missing completely at random and covariate dependent missing, we compared six MI strategies which account for the intra-cluster correlation for missing binary outcomes in CRTs with the standard imputation strategies and complete case analysis approach using a simulation study. METHOD: We considered three within-cluster and three across-cluster MI strategies for missing binary outcomes in CRTs. The three within-cluster MI strategies are logistic regression method, propensity score method, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, which apply standard MI strategies within each cluster. The three across-cluster MI strategies are propensity score method, random-effects (RE) logistic regression approach, and logistic regression with cluster as a fixed effect. Based on the community hypertension assessment trial (CHAT) which has complete data, we designed a simulation study to investigate the performance of above MI strategies. RESULTS: The estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model based on the CHAT complete dataset are 1.14 (0.76 1.70). When 30% of binary outcome are missing completely at random, a simulation study shows that the estimated treatment effects and the corresponding 95% CIs from GEE model are 1.15 (0.76 1.75) if complete case analysis is used, 1.12 (0.72 1.73) if within-cluster MCMC method is used, 1.21 (0.80 1.81) if across-cluster RE logistic regression is used, and 1.16 (0.82 1.64) if standard logistic regression which does not account for clustering is used. CONCLUSION: When the percentage of missing data is low or intra-cluster correlation coefficient is small, different approaches for handling missing binary outcome data generate quite similar results. When the percentage of missing data is large, standard MI strategies, which do not take into account the intra-cluster correlation, underestimate the variance of the treatment effect. Within-cluster and across-cluster MI strategies (except for random-effects logistic regression MI strategy), which take the intra-cluster correlation into account, seem to be more appropriate to handle the missing outcome from CRTs. Under the same imputation strategy and percentage of missingness, the estimates of the treatment effect from GEE and RE logistic regression models are similar. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3055218 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30552182011-03-15 Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials Ma, Jinhui Akhtar-Danesh, Noori Dolovich, Lisa Thabane, Lehana BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Attrition, which leads to missing data, is a common problem in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where groups of patients rather than individuals are randomized. Standard multiple imputation (MI) strategies may not be appropriate to impute missing data from CRTs since they assume independent data. In this paper, under the assumption of missing completely at random and covariate dependent missing, we compared six MI strategies which account for the intra-cluster correlation for missing binary outcomes in CRTs with the standard imputation strategies and complete case analysis approach using a simulation study. METHOD: We considered three within-cluster and three across-cluster MI strategies for missing binary outcomes in CRTs. The three within-cluster MI strategies are logistic regression method, propensity score method, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, which apply standard MI strategies within each cluster. The three across-cluster MI strategies are propensity score method, random-effects (RE) logistic regression approach, and logistic regression with cluster as a fixed effect. Based on the community hypertension assessment trial (CHAT) which has complete data, we designed a simulation study to investigate the performance of above MI strategies. RESULTS: The estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model based on the CHAT complete dataset are 1.14 (0.76 1.70). When 30% of binary outcome are missing completely at random, a simulation study shows that the estimated treatment effects and the corresponding 95% CIs from GEE model are 1.15 (0.76 1.75) if complete case analysis is used, 1.12 (0.72 1.73) if within-cluster MCMC method is used, 1.21 (0.80 1.81) if across-cluster RE logistic regression is used, and 1.16 (0.82 1.64) if standard logistic regression which does not account for clustering is used. CONCLUSION: When the percentage of missing data is low or intra-cluster correlation coefficient is small, different approaches for handling missing binary outcome data generate quite similar results. When the percentage of missing data is large, standard MI strategies, which do not take into account the intra-cluster correlation, underestimate the variance of the treatment effect. Within-cluster and across-cluster MI strategies (except for random-effects logistic regression MI strategy), which take the intra-cluster correlation into account, seem to be more appropriate to handle the missing outcome from CRTs. Under the same imputation strategy and percentage of missingness, the estimates of the treatment effect from GEE and RE logistic regression models are similar. BioMed Central 2011-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3055218/ /pubmed/21324148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-18 Text en Copyright ©2011 Ma et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ma, Jinhui Akhtar-Danesh, Noori Dolovich, Lisa Thabane, Lehana Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title | Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title_full | Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title_fullStr | Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title_short | Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
title_sort | imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21324148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT majinhui imputationstrategiesformissingbinaryoutcomesinclusterrandomizedtrials AT akhtardaneshnoori imputationstrategiesformissingbinaryoutcomesinclusterrandomizedtrials AT dolovichlisa imputationstrategiesformissingbinaryoutcomesinclusterrandomizedtrials AT thabanelehana imputationstrategiesformissingbinaryoutcomesinclusterrandomizedtrials |