64
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: Use and interpretation of the trimmed means estimator

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Outcome values in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be missing not at random (MNAR), if patients with extreme outcome values are more likely to drop out (eg, due to perceived ineffectiveness of treatment, or adverse effects). In such scenarios, estimates from complete case analysis (CCA) and multiple imputation (MI) will be biased. We investigate the use of the trimmed means (TM) estimator for the case of univariable missingness in one continuous outcome. The TM estimator operates by setting missing values to the most extreme value, and then “trimming” away equal fractions of both groups, estimating the treatment effect using the remaining data. The TM estimator relies on two assumptions, which we term the “strong MNAR” and “location shift” assumptions. We derive formulae for the TM estimator bias resulting from the violation of these assumptions for normally distributed outcomes. We propose an adjusted TM estimator, which relaxes the location shift assumption and detail how our bias formulae can be used to establish the direction of bias of CCA and TM estimates, to inform sensitivity analyses. The TM approach is illustrated in a sensitivity analysis of the CoBalT RCT of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in 469 individuals with 46 months follow‐up. Results were consistent with a beneficial CBT treatment effect, with MI estimates closer to the null and TM estimates further from the null than the CCA estimate. We propose using the TM estimator as a sensitivity analysis for data where extreme outcome value dropout is plausible.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts

            Background Missing data may seriously compromise inferences from randomised clinical trials, especially if missing data are not handled appropriately. The potential bias due to missing data depends on the mechanism causing the data to be missing, and the analytical methods applied to amend the missingness. Therefore, the analysis of trial data with missing values requires careful planning and attention. Methods The authors had several meetings and discussions considering optimal ways of handling missing data to minimise the bias potential. We also searched PubMed (key words: missing data; randomi*; statistical analysis) and reference lists of known studies for papers (theoretical papers; empirical studies; simulation studies; etc.) on how to deal with missing data when analysing randomised clinical trials. Results Handling missing data is an important, yet difficult and complex task when analysing results of randomised clinical trials. We consider how to optimise the handling of missing data during the planning stage of a randomised clinical trial and recommend analytical approaches which may prevent bias caused by unavoidable missing data. We consider the strengths and limitations of using of best-worst and worst-best sensitivity analyses, multiple imputation, and full information maximum likelihood. We also present practical flowcharts on how to deal with missing data and an overview of the steps that always need to be considered during the analysis stage of a trial. Conclusions We present a practical guide and flowcharts describing when and how multiple imputation should be used to handle missing data in randomised clinical. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Inference and missing data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.d.hazewinkel@bristol.ac.uk
                Journal
                Stat Med
                Stat Med
                10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258
                SIM
                Statistics in Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0277-6715
                1097-0258
                31 January 2022
                15 April 2022
                : 41
                : 8 ( doiID: 10.1002/sim.v41.8 )
                : 1462-1481
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Bristol UK
                [ 2 ] Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Bristol UK
                [ 3 ] Exeter Diabetes Group (ExCEED), College of Medicine and Health University of Exeter Exeter UK
                [ 4 ] Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Bristol UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Audinga‐Dea Hazewinkel, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

                Email: a.d.hazewinkel@ 123456bristol.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6923-4388
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2628-3304
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-4511
                Article
                SIM9299
                10.1002/sim.9299
                9303448
                35098576
                2b58e93a-f9c8-40b8-9c74-c4aa949bc7ca
                © 2022 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 09 December 2021
                : 12 February 2021
                : 11 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 7, Pages: 20, Words: 10102
                Funding
                Funded by: Health Technology Assessment Programme , doi 10.13039/501100000664;
                Award ID: 06/404/02
                Funded by: Medical Research Council , doi 10.13039/501100007155;
                Award ID: MC_UU_0011/3
                Funded by: UK Research and Innovation , doi 10.13039/100014013;
                Award ID: E3
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust , doi 10.13039/100010269;
                Award ID: 204813/Z/16/Z
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                15 April 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:21.07.2022

                Biostatistics
                bias quantification,dropout,missing not at random,randomized controlled trials,sensitivity analyses,trimmed means

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content236

                Most referenced authors359