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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |