Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data

When missing data occur in studies designed to compare the accuracy of diagnostic tests, a common, though naive, practice is to base the comparison of sensitivity, specificity, as well as of positive and negative predictive values on some subset of the data that fits into methods implemented in standard statistical packages. Such methods are usually valid only under the strong missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption and may generate biased and less precise estimates. We review some models that use the dependence structure of the completely observed cases to incorporate the information of the partially categorized observations into the analysis and show how they may be fitted via a two-stage hybrid process involving maximum likelihood in the first stage and weighted least squares in the second. We indicate how computational subroutines written in R may be used to fit the proposed models and illustrate the different analysis strategies with observational data collected to compare the accuracy of three distinct non-invasive diagnostic methods for endometriosis. The results indicate that even when the MCAR assumption is plausible, the naive partial analyses should be avoided.

Missing data mechanisms and their implications on the analysis of categorical data

We review some issues related to the implications of different missing data mechanisms on statistical inference for contingency tables and consider simulation studies to compare the results obtained under such models to those where the units with missing data are disregarded. We confirm that although, in general, analyses under the correct missing at random and missing completely at random models are more efficient even for small sample sizes, there are exceptions where they may not improve the results obtained by ignoring the partially classified data. We show that under the missing not at random (MNAR) model, estimates on the boundary of the parameter space as well as lack of identifiability of the parameters of saturated models may be associated with undesirable asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests; even in standard cases the bias of the estimators may be low only for very large samples. We also show that the probability of a boundary solution obtained under the correct MNAR model may be large even for large samples and that, consequently, we may not always conclude that a MNAR model is misspecified because the estimate is on the boundary of the parameter space.