» Articles » PMID: 28068910

Outcome-sensitive Multiple Imputation: a Simulation Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2017 Jan 11
PMID 28068910
Citations 57
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Multiple imputation is frequently used to deal with missing data in healthcare research. Although it is known that the outcome should be included in the imputation model when imputing missing covariate values, it is not known whether it should be imputed. Similarly no clear recommendations exist on: the utility of incorporating a secondary outcome, if available, in the imputation model; the level of protection offered when data are missing not-at-random; the implications of the dataset size and missingness levels.

Methods: We used realistic assumptions to generate thousands of datasets across a broad spectrum of contexts: three mechanisms of missingness (completely at random; at random; not at random); varying extents of missingness (20-80% missing data); and different sample sizes (1,000 or 10,000 cases). For each context we quantified the performance of a complete case analysis and seven multiple imputation methods which deleted cases with missing outcome before imputation, after imputation or not at all; included or did not include the outcome in the imputation models; and included or did not include a secondary outcome in the imputation models. Methods were compared on mean absolute error, bias, coverage and power over 1,000 datasets for each scenario.

Results: Overall, there was very little to separate multiple imputation methods which included the outcome in the imputation model. Even when missingness was quite extensive, all multiple imputation approaches performed well. Incorporating a secondary outcome, moderately correlated with the outcome of interest, made very little difference. The dataset size and the extent of missingness affected performance, as expected. Multiple imputation methods protected less well against missingness not at random, but did offer some protection.

Conclusions: As long as the outcome is included in the imputation model, there are very small performance differences between the possible multiple imputation approaches: no outcome imputation, imputation or imputation and deletion. All informative covariates, even with very high levels of missingness, should be included in the multiple imputation model. Multiple imputation offers some protection against a simple missing not at random mechanism.

Citing Articles

15-Year trends, predictors, and outcomes of heart failure hospitalization complicating first acute myocardial infarction in the modern percutaneous coronary intervention era.

Rashid M, Abramov D, Naseer M, Van Spall H, Ahmed F, Lawson C Eur Heart J Open. 2025; 5(2):oeaf013.

PMID: 40078653 PMC: 11896973. DOI: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf013.


South Korea's healthcare expenditure: a comprehensive study of public and private spending across health conditions, demographics, and payer types (2011-2020).

Yoo K, Lee Y, Park S, Cha Y, Kim J, Lee T Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2025; 54():101269.

PMID: 39840149 PMC: 11750444. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101269.


Risk of dementia associated with anticholinergic drugs for overactive bladder in adults aged ≥55 years: nested case-control study.

Iyen B, Coupland C, Bell B, Ashcroft D, Orrell M, Bishara D BMJ Med. 2024; 3(1):e000799.

PMID: 39574420 PMC: 11580265. DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000799.


Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide.

Efthimiou O, Seo M, Chalkou K, Debray T, Egger M, Salanti G BMJ. 2024; 386:e078276.

PMID: 39227063 PMC: 11369751. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078276.


Development and Validation of Predictive Model for a Diagnosis of First Episode Psychosis Using the Multinational EU-GEI Case-control Study and Modern Statistical Learning Methods.

Ajnakina O, Fadilah I, Quattrone D, Arango C, Berardi D, Bernardo M Schizophr Bull Open. 2024; 4(1):sgad008.

PMID: 39145333 PMC: 11207766. DOI: 10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad008.


References
1.
White I, Carlin J . Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010; 29(28):2920-31. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3944. View

2.
Bell M, Fiero M, Horton N, Hsu C . Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:118. PMC: 4247714. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118. View

3.
Kontopantelis E, Reeves D . Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: A simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010; 21(4):409-26. DOI: 10.1177/0962280210392008. View

4.
Sullivan T, Salter A, Ryan P, Lee K . Bias and Precision of the "Multiple Imputation, Then Deletion" Method for Dealing With Missing Outcome Data. Am J Epidemiol. 2015; 182(6):528-34. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv100. View

5.
Mamas M, Nolan J, de Belder M, Zaman A, Kinnaird T, Curzen N . Changes in Arterial Access Site and Association With Mortality in the United Kingdom: Observations From a National Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Database. Circulation. 2016; 133(17):1655-67. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018083. View