Cargando…
Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
Background: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which dif...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Atlantis Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32175708 http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.191207.001 |
_version_ | 1783549428745895936 |
---|---|
author | Miri, Hamid Heidarian Hassanzadeh, Jafar Khaniki, Saeedeh Hajebi Akrami, Rahim Sirjani, Ehsan Baradaran |
author_facet | Miri, Hamid Heidarian Hassanzadeh, Jafar Khaniki, Saeedeh Hajebi Akrami, Rahim Sirjani, Ehsan Baradaran |
author_sort | Miri, Hamid Heidarian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which differed by rate of simulated missing data, variable transformation, and MI method. In each state, the process of simulation of missing data and then MI were repeated 50 times. Evaluation was based on Relative Bias (RB) as well as five other measurements that were averaged over 50 repetitions. Results: In estimation of mean, Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) and Multiple Imputation by Chained Equation (MICE) could compensate for the nonresponse bias. Ln and Box–Cox (BC) transformation should be applied when the nonresponse rate reaches 40% and 60%, respectively. In estimation of proportion, PMM, MICE, bootstrap expectation maximization algorithm (BEM), and linear regression accompanied by BC transformation could correct for the nonresponse bias. Our findings show that even with 60% of nonresponse rate some of the MI methods could satisfactorily result in estimates with negligible RB. Conclusion: Decision on MI method and variable transformation should be taken with caution. It is not possible to regard one method as totally the worst or the best and each method could outperform the others if it is applied in its right situation. Even in a certain situation, one method could be the best in terms of validity but the other method could be the best in terms of precision. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7310803 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Atlantis Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73108032020-07-28 Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys Miri, Hamid Heidarian Hassanzadeh, Jafar Khaniki, Saeedeh Hajebi Akrami, Rahim Sirjani, Ehsan Baradaran J Epidemiol Glob Health Research Article Background: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which differed by rate of simulated missing data, variable transformation, and MI method. In each state, the process of simulation of missing data and then MI were repeated 50 times. Evaluation was based on Relative Bias (RB) as well as five other measurements that were averaged over 50 repetitions. Results: In estimation of mean, Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) and Multiple Imputation by Chained Equation (MICE) could compensate for the nonresponse bias. Ln and Box–Cox (BC) transformation should be applied when the nonresponse rate reaches 40% and 60%, respectively. In estimation of proportion, PMM, MICE, bootstrap expectation maximization algorithm (BEM), and linear regression accompanied by BC transformation could correct for the nonresponse bias. Our findings show that even with 60% of nonresponse rate some of the MI methods could satisfactorily result in estimates with negligible RB. Conclusion: Decision on MI method and variable transformation should be taken with caution. It is not possible to regard one method as totally the worst or the best and each method could outperform the others if it is applied in its right situation. Even in a certain situation, one method could be the best in terms of validity but the other method could be the best in terms of precision. Atlantis Press 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7310803/ /pubmed/32175708 http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.191207.001 Text en © 2020 Atlantis Press International B.V. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research Article Miri, Hamid Heidarian Hassanzadeh, Jafar Khaniki, Saeedeh Hajebi Akrami, Rahim Sirjani, Ehsan Baradaran Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title | Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title_full | Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title_short | Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys |
title_sort | accuracy of five multiple imputation methods in estimating prevalence of type 2 diabetes based on steps surveys |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32175708 http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.191207.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mirihamidheidarian accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys AT hassanzadehjafar accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys AT khanikisaeedehhajebi accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys AT akramirahim accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys AT sirjaniehsanbaradaran accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys |