Cargando…

Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury

Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kunzmann, Kevin, Wernisch, Lorenz, Richardson, Sylvia, Steyerberg, Ewout W., Lingsma, Hester, Ercole, Ari, Maas, Andrew I.R., Menon, David, Wilson, Lindsay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7875604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6858
_version_ 1783649793864630272
author Kunzmann, Kevin
Wernisch, Lorenz
Richardson, Sylvia
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Lingsma, Hester
Ercole, Ari
Maas, Andrew I.R.
Menon, David
Wilson, Lindsay
author_facet Kunzmann, Kevin
Wernisch, Lorenz
Richardson, Sylvia
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Lingsma, Hester
Ercole, Ari
Maas, Andrew I.R.
Menon, David
Wilson, Lindsay
author_sort Kunzmann, Kevin
collection PubMed
description Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 ± 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 ± 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7875604
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78756042021-02-11 Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury Kunzmann, Kevin Wernisch, Lorenz Richardson, Sylvia Steyerberg, Ewout W. Lingsma, Hester Ercole, Ari Maas, Andrew I.R. Menon, David Wilson, Lindsay J Neurotrauma Original Articles Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 ± 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 ± 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2021-02-15 2021-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7875604/ /pubmed/33108942 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6858 Text en © Kevin Kunzmann et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kunzmann, Kevin
Wernisch, Lorenz
Richardson, Sylvia
Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Lingsma, Hester
Ercole, Ari
Maas, Andrew I.R.
Menon, David
Wilson, Lindsay
Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title_full Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title_fullStr Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title_full_unstemmed Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title_short Imputation of Ordinal Outcomes: A Comparison of Approaches in Traumatic Brain Injury
title_sort imputation of ordinal outcomes: a comparison of approaches in traumatic brain injury
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7875604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/neu.2019.6858
work_keys_str_mv AT kunzmannkevin imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT wernischlorenz imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT richardsonsylvia imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT steyerbergewoutw imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT lingsmahester imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT ercoleari imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT maasandrewir imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT menondavid imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury
AT wilsonlindsay imputationofordinaloutcomesacomparisonofapproachesintraumaticbraininjury