Abstract

ObjectiveQoL data were routinely collected in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), which employed a reminder system, retrieving about 50% of data originally missing. The objective was to use this unique feature to evaluate possible missingness mechanisms and to assess the accuracy of simple imputation methods.MethodsThose patients responding after reminder were regarded as providing missing responses. A hypothesis test and a logistic regression approach were used to evaluate the missingness mechanism. Simple imputation procedures were carried out on these missing scores and the results compared to the actual observed scores.ResultsThe hypothesis test and logistic regression approaches suggested the reminder data were missing not at random (MNAR). Reminder-response data showed that simple imputation procedures utilising information collected close to the point of imputation (last value carried forward, next value carried backward and last-and-next), were the best methods in this setting. However, although these methods were the best of the simple imputation procedures considered, they were not sufficiently accurate to be confident of obtaining unbiased results under imputation.ConclusionThe use of the reminder data enabled the conclusion of possible MNAR data. Evaluating this mechanism was important in determining if imputation was useful. Simple imputation was shown to be inadequate if MNAR are likely and alternative strategies should be considered.

Highlights

  • Missing data are a common occurrence in any area of research, and are especially problematic in quality of life (QoL) studies

  • The four month data were considered the "baseline" measure as QoL for many patients at entry to the trial would be artificially low while they were being treated in hospital for their primary fracture

  • It is possible that the "reminder-responders" may differ from the persistent non-responders, but the analyses found no evidence of this in terms of previous QoL scores

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Missing data are a common occurrence in any area of research, and are especially problematic in quality of life (QoL) studies. Data may be missing for a variety of reasons. If these reasons relate to the QoL of the patient, the missingness is informative. Excluding those with missing data from the analysis ("complete case analysis"), will bias the results if those who did not respond had significantly lower (or higher) QoL scores than those who did respond. Rubin [1] defines three main mechanisms of missing data: missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR).

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call