A review of the use of controlled multiple imputation in randomised controlled trials with missing outcome data

Abstract

Background Missing data are common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and can bias results if not handled appropriately. A statistically valid analysis under the primary missing-data assumptions should be conducted, followed by sensitivity analysis under alternative justified assumptions to assess the robustness of results. Controlled Multiple Imputation (MI) procedures, including delta-based and reference-based approaches, have been developed for analysis under missing-not-at-random assumptions. However, it is unclear how often these methods are used, how they are reported, and what their impact is on trial results. This review evaluates the current use and reporting of MI and controlled MI in RCTs. Methods A targeted review of phase II-IV RCTs (non-cluster randomised) published in two leading general medical journals (The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) between January 2014 and December 2019 using MI. Data was extracted on imputation methods, analysis status, and reporting of results. Results of primary and sensitivity analyses for trials using controlled MI analyses were compared. Results A total of 118 RCTs (9% of published RCTs) used some form of MI. MI under missing-at-random was used in 110 trials; this was for primary analysis in 43/118 (36%), and in sensitivity analysis for 70/118 (59%) (3 used in both). Sixteen studies performed controlled MI (1.3% of published RCTs), either with a delta-based (n = 9) or reference-based approach (n = 7). Controlled MI was mostly used in sensitivity analysis (n = 14/16). Two trials used controlled MI for primary analysis, including one reporting no sensitivity analysis whilst the other reported similar results without imputation. Of the 14 trials using controlled MI in sensitivity analysis, 12 yielded comparable results to the primary analysis whereas 2 demonstrated contradicting results. Only 5/110 (5%) trials using missing-at-random MI and 5/16 (31%) trials using controlled MI reported complete details on MI methods. Conclusions Controlled MI enabled the impact of accessible contextually relevant missing data assumptions to be examined on trial results. The use of controlled MI is increasing but is still infrequent and poorly reported where used. There is a need for improved reporting on the implementation of MI analyses and choice of controlled MI parameters.

Balance Training Modulates Cortical Inhibition in Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…We managed and replaced the missing values using multiple imputations. 21 At baseline, between-group comparisons of CSP showed no significant differences. There was a significant increase in the CSP after balance training (P = .028), whereas no significant change was observed in the CON group (P = .196; Table 2).…”

Methods for handling missing data in serially sampled sputum specimens for mycobacterial culture conversion calculation

“…There is extensive literature on the theoretical development of multiple imputation as well as numerous tutorials with applications to different research areas [ 34 – 36 ]. The statistical properties and validity of multiple imputation have also been shown by many to be superior to other simple and naïve methods for addressing missing outcome and covariate data including ACA and LOCF [ 37 ].…”

Mental Health Chatbot for Young Adults With Depressive Symptoms During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Single-Blind, Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

“…δ-based MI entails modifying the MAR imputation distribution using a specified numerical delta parameter to make predicted responses better or worse than predicted under MAR. For a continuous outcome, δ, the offset parameter can represent the difference in the mean response between the observed and unobserved cases [ 80 ]. Usually, the sensitivity analysis will repeat for a range of δ values corresponding to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the absolute change from baseline of outcomes in all participants.…”