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

Janus Christian Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Jørn Wetterslev, Per Winkel, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Jørn Wetterslev, Per Winkel

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Missing data; Multiple imputation; Randomised clinical trials.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart: when should multiple imputation be used to handle missing data when analysing results of randomised clinical trials
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart of multiple imputation

References

    1. Groenwold RHH, Moons KGM, Vandenbroucke JP. Randomized trials with missing outcome data: how to analyze and what to report. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2014;186(15):1153–1157. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131353.
    1. Nguyen TL, Collins GS, Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Daures JP, Landais P, Le Manach Y. Simple randomization did not protect against bias in smaller trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.010.
    1. Little RJ, D'Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1355–1360. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730.
    1. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR: Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:157–60.
    1. Dziura JD, Post LA, Zhao Q, Fu Z, Peduzzi P. Strategies for dealing with missing data in clinical trials: from design to analysis. Yale J Biol Med. 2013;86(3):343–358.
    1. Morris TP, Kahan BC, White IR. Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-11.
    1. Skoog M, Saarimäki JM, Gluud C, Sheinin M, Erlendsson K, Aamdal S, et al. Transparency and registration in clinical research in the Nordic countries. Oslo: NordForsk: Nordic Trial Alliance; 2015. p. 1–108.
    1. Ebrahim S, Sohani ZN, Montoya L, Agarwal A, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP. Reanalyses of randomized clinical trial data. JAMA. 2014;312(10):1024–1032. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.9646.
    1. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K, Investigators M Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007.
    1. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N et al: Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:95–110.
    1. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e5840. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5840.
    1. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat Med. 2011;31:328–340. doi: 10.1002/sim.4431.
    1. Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu CH. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118.
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344:e1119. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1119.
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–E211. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.120744.
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–1283. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu115.
    1. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Scholl JB, Bero L: Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017, Art. No.: MR000033. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.(2):MR000033.
    1. Zhang Y, Alyass A, Vanniyasingam T, Sadeghirad B, Florez ID, Pichika SC, Kennedy SA, Abdulkarimova U, Zhang Y, Iljon T, et al. A systematic survey of the methods literature on the reporting quality and optimal methods of handling participants with missing outcome data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.016.
    1. Jorgensen AW, Lundstrom LH, Wetterslev J, Astrup A, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of results from different imputation techniques for missing data from an anti-obesity drug trial. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e111964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111964.
    1. Garson GD: Missing Values Analysis and Data Imputation. North Carolina: Statistical Associates Publishers: Statistical Associates Publishers; 2015.
    1. Horton NJ, Lipsitz SR. Multiple imputation in practice: comparison of software packages for regression models with missing variables. Am Stat. 2001;55(3):244–254. doi: 10.1198/000313001317098266.
    1. StataCorp . Stata: release 14. Statistical software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
    1. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Winkel P, Lange T, Wetterslev J. The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance - a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-34.
    1. Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Lange T, Gluud C. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):120. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-120.
    1. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Aneman A, Madsen KR, Moller MH, Elkjaer JM, Poulsen LM, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):124–134. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204242.
    1. Clark TG, Altman DG. Developing a prognostic model in the presence of missing data: an ovarian cancer case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(1):28–37. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00539-5.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011, Available from . Accessed 1 Oct 2017.
    1. Allison PD. SAS global forum 2012 statistics and data analysis. 2012. Handling missing data by maximum likelihood, statistical horizons.
    1. StataCorp.: STATA Multiple imputation. Reference manual 2013, Release 13.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration . Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) 1998. Guidance for industry E9 statistical principles for clinical trials.
    1. Kahan BC. Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-20.
    1. Locascio JJ, Atri A. An overview of longitudinal data analysis methods for neurological research. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2011;1(1):330–357. doi: 10.1159/000330228.
    1. Birhanu T, Molenberghs G, Sotto C, Kenward MG. Doubly robust and multiple-imputation-based generalized estimating equations. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21(2):202–225. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2011.550096.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться