Multiple imputation of missing repeated outcome measurements did not add to linear mixed-effects models

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Sanne A.E. Peters^a ; ^{s.a.e.peters@umcutrecht.nl} ; Michiel L. Bots^a ; Hester M. den Ruijter^a ; Mike K. Palmer^b ; Diederick E. Grobbee^a ; John R. Crouse III^c ; Daniel H. O&rsquo ; Leary^d ; Gregory W. Evans^e ; Joel S. Raichlen^f ; Karel G.M. Moons^a ; Hendrik Koffijberg^a ; METEOR study group
• 关键词：Multiple imputation ; Missing repeated outcome measurements ; Linear mixed-effects model ; Methodology ; Clinical trials ; Carotid intima-media thickness
• 刊名：Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：148_08954356
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：June, 2012
• 卷：65
• 期：6
• 页码：686-695
• 文件大小：455 K

摘要

Objective

To assess the added value of multiple imputation (MI) of missing repeated outcomes measures in longitudinal data sets analyzed with linear mixed-effects (LME) models.

Study Design and Setting

Data were used from a trial on the effects of Rosuvastatin on rate of change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT). The reference treatment effect was derived from a complete data set. Scenarios and proportions of missing values in CIMT measurements were applied and LME analyses were used before and after MI. The added value of MI, in terms of bias and precision, was assessed using the mean-squared error (MSE) of the treatment effects and coverage of the 95%confidence interval.

Results

The reference treatment effect was 鈭?.0177 mm/y. The MSEs for LME analysis without and with MI were similar in scenarios with up to 40%missing values. Coverage was large in all scenarios and was similar for LME with and without MI.

Conclusion

Our study empirically shows that MI of missing end point data before LME analyses does not increase precision in the estimated rate of change in the end point. Hence, MI had no added value in this setting and standard LME modeling remains the method of choice.