Cargando…

Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation

OBJECTIVE: Missing data are a pervasive problem, often leading to bias in complete records analysis (CRA). Multiple imputation (MI) via chained equations is one solution, but its use in the presence of interactions is not straightforward. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We simulated data with outcome Y de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tilling, Kate, Williamson, Elizabeth J., Spratt, Michael, Sterne, Jonathan A.C., Carpenter, James R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5176003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27445178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.004
_version_ 1782484753609392128
author Tilling, Kate
Williamson, Elizabeth J.
Spratt, Michael
Sterne, Jonathan A.C.
Carpenter, James R.
author_facet Tilling, Kate
Williamson, Elizabeth J.
Spratt, Michael
Sterne, Jonathan A.C.
Carpenter, James R.
author_sort Tilling, Kate
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Missing data are a pervasive problem, often leading to bias in complete records analysis (CRA). Multiple imputation (MI) via chained equations is one solution, but its use in the presence of interactions is not straightforward. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We simulated data with outcome Y dependent on binary explanatory variables X and Z and their interaction XZ. Six scenarios were simulated (Y continuous and binary, each with no interaction, a weak and a strong interaction), under five missing data mechanisms. We use directed acyclic graphs to identify when CRA and MI would each be unbiased. We evaluate the performance of CRA, MI without interactions, MI including all interactions, and stratified imputation. We also illustrated these methods using a simple example from the National Child Development Study (NCDS). RESULTS: MI excluding interactions is invalid and resulted in biased estimates and low coverage. When XZ was zero, MI excluding interactions gave unbiased estimates but overcoverage. MI including interactions and stratified MI gave equivalent, valid inference in all cases. In the NCDS example, MI excluding interactions incorrectly concluded there was no evidence for an important interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologists carrying out MI should ensure that their imputation model(s) are compatible with their analysis model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5176003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51760032016-12-23 Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation Tilling, Kate Williamson, Elizabeth J. Spratt, Michael Sterne, Jonathan A.C. Carpenter, James R. J Clin Epidemiol Original Article OBJECTIVE: Missing data are a pervasive problem, often leading to bias in complete records analysis (CRA). Multiple imputation (MI) via chained equations is one solution, but its use in the presence of interactions is not straightforward. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We simulated data with outcome Y dependent on binary explanatory variables X and Z and their interaction XZ. Six scenarios were simulated (Y continuous and binary, each with no interaction, a weak and a strong interaction), under five missing data mechanisms. We use directed acyclic graphs to identify when CRA and MI would each be unbiased. We evaluate the performance of CRA, MI without interactions, MI including all interactions, and stratified imputation. We also illustrated these methods using a simple example from the National Child Development Study (NCDS). RESULTS: MI excluding interactions is invalid and resulted in biased estimates and low coverage. When XZ was zero, MI excluding interactions gave unbiased estimates but overcoverage. MI including interactions and stratified MI gave equivalent, valid inference in all cases. In the NCDS example, MI excluding interactions incorrectly concluded there was no evidence for an important interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologists carrying out MI should ensure that their imputation model(s) are compatible with their analysis model. Elsevier 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5176003/ /pubmed/27445178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.004 Text en © 2016 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Tilling, Kate
Williamson, Elizabeth J.
Spratt, Michael
Sterne, Jonathan A.C.
Carpenter, James R.
Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title_full Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title_fullStr Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title_full_unstemmed Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title_short Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
title_sort appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5176003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27445178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.004
work_keys_str_mv AT tillingkate appropriateinclusionofinteractionswasneededtoavoidbiasinmultipleimputation
AT williamsonelizabethj appropriateinclusionofinteractionswasneededtoavoidbiasinmultipleimputation
AT sprattmichael appropriateinclusionofinteractionswasneededtoavoidbiasinmultipleimputation
AT sternejonathanac appropriateinclusionofinteractionswasneededtoavoidbiasinmultipleimputation
AT carpenterjamesr appropriateinclusionofinteractionswasneededtoavoidbiasinmultipleimputation