University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Paediatrics (RCH)
  • Paediatrics (RCH) - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne Medical School
  • Paediatrics (RCH)
  • Paediatrics (RCH) - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?

    Thumbnail
    Download
    published version (865.9Kb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Web of Science
    Altmetric
    41
    36
    Author
    Sullivan, TR; White, IR; Salter, AB; Ryan, P; Lee, KJ
    Date
    2018-09-01
    Source Title
    Statistical Methods in Medical Research
    Publisher
    SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Lee, Katherine; Ryan, Philip
    Affiliation
    Paediatrics (RCH)
    Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Sullivan, T. R., White, I. R., Salter, A. B., Ryan, P. & Lee, K. J. (2018). Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 27 (9), pp.2610-2626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280216683570.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/257635
    DOI
    10.1177/0962280216683570
    Abstract
    The use of multiple imputation has increased markedly in recent years, and journal reviewers may expect to see multiple imputation used to handle missing data. However in randomized trials, where treatment group is always observed and independent of baseline covariates, other approaches may be preferable. Using data simulation we evaluated multiple imputation, performed both overall and separately by randomized group, across a range of commonly encountered scenarios. We considered both missing outcome and missing baseline data, with missing outcome data induced under missing at random mechanisms. Provided the analysis model was correctly specified, multiple imputation produced unbiased treatment effect estimates, but alternative unbiased approaches were often more efficient. When the analysis model overlooked an interaction effect involving randomized group, multiple imputation produced biased estimates of the average treatment effect when applied to missing outcome data, unless imputation was performed separately by randomized group. Based on these results, we conclude that multiple imputation should not be seen as the only acceptable way to handle missing data in randomized trials. In settings where multiple imputation is adopted, we recommend that imputation is carried out separately by randomized group.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [53102]
    • Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health - Research Publications [1300]
    • Paediatrics (RCH) - Research Publications [2391]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors