Cargando…

What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns

PURPOSE: Although multiple imputation is the state-of-the-art method for managing missing data, mixed models without multiple imputation may be equally valid for longitudinal data. Additionally, it is not clear whether missing values in multi-item instruments should be imputed at item or score-level...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rösel, Inka, Serna-Higuita, Lina María, Al Sayah, Fatima, Buchholz, Maresa, Buchholz, Ines, Kohlmann, Thomas, Martus, Peter, Feng, You-Shan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9023409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34797507
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03037-3
_version_ 1784690343104479232
author Rösel, Inka
Serna-Higuita, Lina María
Al Sayah, Fatima
Buchholz, Maresa
Buchholz, Ines
Kohlmann, Thomas
Martus, Peter
Feng, You-Shan
author_facet Rösel, Inka
Serna-Higuita, Lina María
Al Sayah, Fatima
Buchholz, Maresa
Buchholz, Ines
Kohlmann, Thomas
Martus, Peter
Feng, You-Shan
author_sort Rösel, Inka
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Although multiple imputation is the state-of-the-art method for managing missing data, mixed models without multiple imputation may be equally valid for longitudinal data. Additionally, it is not clear whether missing values in multi-item instruments should be imputed at item or score-level. We therefore explored the differences in analyzing the scores of a health-related quality of life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) using four approaches in two empirical datasets. METHODS: We used simulated (GR dataset) and observed missingness patterns (ABCD dataset) in EQ-5D-5L scores to investigate the following approaches: approach-1) mixed models using respondents with complete cases, approach-2) mixed models using all available data, approach-3) mixed models after multiple imputation of the EQ-5D-5L scores, and approach-4) mixed models after multiple imputation of EQ-5D 5L items. RESULTS: Approach-1 yielded the highest estimates of all approaches (ABCD, GR), increasingly overestimating the EQ-5D-5L score with higher percentages of missing data (GR). Approach-4 produced the lowest scores at follow-up evaluations (ABCD, GR). Standard errors (0.006–0.008) and mean squared errors (0.032–0.035) increased with increasing percentages of simulated missing GR data. Approaches 2 and 3 showed similar results (both datasets). CONCLUSION: Complete cases analyses overestimated the scores and mixed models after multiple imputation by items yielded the lowest scores. As there was no loss of accuracy, mixed models without multiple imputation, when baseline covariates are complete, might be the most parsimonious choice to deal with missing data. However, multiple imputation may be needed when baseline covariates are missing and/or more than two timepoints are considered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-03037-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9023409
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90234092022-05-06 What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns Rösel, Inka Serna-Higuita, Lina María Al Sayah, Fatima Buchholz, Maresa Buchholz, Ines Kohlmann, Thomas Martus, Peter Feng, You-Shan Qual Life Res Article PURPOSE: Although multiple imputation is the state-of-the-art method for managing missing data, mixed models without multiple imputation may be equally valid for longitudinal data. Additionally, it is not clear whether missing values in multi-item instruments should be imputed at item or score-level. We therefore explored the differences in analyzing the scores of a health-related quality of life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) using four approaches in two empirical datasets. METHODS: We used simulated (GR dataset) and observed missingness patterns (ABCD dataset) in EQ-5D-5L scores to investigate the following approaches: approach-1) mixed models using respondents with complete cases, approach-2) mixed models using all available data, approach-3) mixed models after multiple imputation of the EQ-5D-5L scores, and approach-4) mixed models after multiple imputation of EQ-5D 5L items. RESULTS: Approach-1 yielded the highest estimates of all approaches (ABCD, GR), increasingly overestimating the EQ-5D-5L score with higher percentages of missing data (GR). Approach-4 produced the lowest scores at follow-up evaluations (ABCD, GR). Standard errors (0.006–0.008) and mean squared errors (0.032–0.035) increased with increasing percentages of simulated missing GR data. Approaches 2 and 3 showed similar results (both datasets). CONCLUSION: Complete cases analyses overestimated the scores and mixed models after multiple imputation by items yielded the lowest scores. As there was no loss of accuracy, mixed models without multiple imputation, when baseline covariates are complete, might be the most parsimonious choice to deal with missing data. However, multiple imputation may be needed when baseline covariates are missing and/or more than two timepoints are considered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-03037-3. Springer International Publishing 2021-11-19 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9023409/ /pubmed/34797507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03037-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Rösel, Inka
Serna-Higuita, Lina María
Al Sayah, Fatima
Buchholz, Maresa
Buchholz, Ines
Kohlmann, Thomas
Martus, Peter
Feng, You-Shan
What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title_full What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title_fullStr What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title_full_unstemmed What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title_short What difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of EQ-5D-5L data? Empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
title_sort what difference does multiple imputation make in longitudinal modeling of eq-5d-5l data? empirical analyses of simulated and observed missing data patterns
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9023409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34797507
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03037-3
work_keys_str_mv AT roselinka whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT sernahiguitalinamaria whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT alsayahfatima whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT buchholzmaresa whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT buchholzines whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT kohlmannthomas whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT martuspeter whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns
AT fengyoushan whatdifferencedoesmultipleimputationmakeinlongitudinalmodelingofeq5d5ldataempiricalanalysesofsimulatedandobservedmissingdatapatterns