Multiple imputation for missing continuous and dichotomous data: The effects of patterns of missingness and variable correlations on type I error with small samples

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of predictor variable correlations and patterns of missingness with dichotomous and/or continuous data in small samples when missing data is multiply imputed. Missing data of predictor variables is multiply imputed under three different multivariate models: the multivariate normal model for continuous data, the multinomial model for dichotomous data and the general location model for mixed dichotomous and continuous data. Subsequent to the multiple imputation process, Type I error rates of the regression coefficients obtained with logistic regression analysis are estimated under various conditions of correlation structure, sample size, type of data and patterns of missing data. The distributional properties of average mean, variance and correlations among the predictor variables are assessed after the multiple imputation process. ^ For continuous predictor data under the multivariate normal model, Type I error rates are generally within the nominal values with samples of size n = 100. Smaller samples of size n = 50 resulted in more conservative estimates (i.e., lower than the nominal value). Correlation and variance estimates of the original data are retained after multiple imputation with less than 50% missing continuous predictor data. For dichotomous predictor data under the multinomial model, Type I error rates are generally conservative, which in part is due to the sparseness of the data. The correlation structure for the predictor variables is not well retained on multiply-imputed data from small samples with more than 50% missing data with this model. For mixed continuous and dichotomous predictor data, the results are similar to those found under the multivariate normal model for continuous data and under the multinomial model for dichotomous data. With all data types, a fully-observed variable included with variables subject to missingness in the multiple imputation process and subsequent statistical analysis provided liberal (larger than nominal values) Type I error rates under a specific pattern of missing data. It is suggested that future studies focus on the effects of multiple imputation in multivariate settings with more realistic data characteristics and a variety of multivariate analyses, assessing both Type I error and power. ^

Motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: Handling missing values with complete case analysis and multiple imputation

Objective: In this secondary data analysis, three statistical methodologies were implemented to handle cases with missing data in a motivational interviewing and feedback study. The aim was to evaluate the impact that these methodologies have on the data analysis. ^ Methods: We first evaluated whether the assumption of missing completely at random held for this study. We then proceeded to conduct a secondary data analysis using a mixed linear model to handle missing data with three methodologies (a) complete case analysis, (b) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, and the interaction of time and treatment, and (c) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, the interaction of time and treatment, and additional covariates (e.g., age, gender, smoke, years in school, marital status, housing, race/ethnicity, and if participants play on athletic team). Several comparisons were conducted including the following ones: 1) the motivation interviewing with feedback group (MIF) vs. the assessment only group (AO), the motivation interviewing group (MIO) vs. AO, and the intervention of the feedback only group (FBO) vs. AO, 2) MIF vs. FBO, and 3) MIF vs. MIO.^ Results: We first evaluated the patterns of missingness in this study, which indicated that about 13% of participants showed monotone missing patterns, and about 3.5% showed non-monotone missing patterns. Then we evaluated the assumption of missing completely at random by Little's missing completely at random (MCAR) test, in which the Chi-Square test statistic was 167.8 with 125 degrees of freedom, and its associated p-value was p=0.006, which indicated that the data could not be assumed to be missing completely at random. After that, we compared if the three different strategies reached the same results. For the comparison between MIF and AO as well as the comparison between MIF and FBO, only the multiple imputation with additional covariates by uncongenial and congenial models reached different results. For the comparison between MIF and MIO, all the methodologies for handling missing values obtained different results. ^ Discussions: The study indicated that, first, missingness was crucial in this study. Second, to understand the assumptions of the model was important since we could not identify if the data were missing at random or missing not at random. Therefore, future researches should focus on exploring more sensitivity analyses under missing not at random assumption.^

Data quality in trauma transfusion studies and the impact of missing data on predicting massive transfusion

Maximizing data quality may be especially difficult in trauma-related clinical research. Strategies are needed to improve data quality and assess the impact of data quality on clinical predictive models. This study had two objectives. The first was to compare missing data between two multi-center trauma transfusion studies: a retrospective study (RS) using medical chart data with minimal data quality review and the PRospective Observational Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study with standardized quality assurance. The second objective was to assess the impact of missing data on clinical prediction algorithms by evaluating blood transfusion prediction models using PROMMTT data. RS (2005-06) and PROMMTT (2009-10) investigated trauma patients receiving ≥ 1 unit of red blood cells (RBC) from ten Level I trauma centers. Missing data were compared for 33 variables collected in both studies using mixed effects logistic regression (including random intercepts for study site). Massive transfusion (MT) patients received ≥ 10 RBC units within 24h of admission. Correct classification percentages for three MT prediction models were evaluated using complete case analysis and multiple imputation based on the multivariate normal distribution. A sensitivity analysis for missing data was conducted to estimate the upper and lower bounds of correct classification using assumptions about missing data under best and worst case scenarios. Most variables (17/33=52%) had <1% missing data in RS and PROMMTT. Of the remaining variables, 50% demonstrated less missingness in PROMMTT, 25% had less missingness in RS, and 25% were similar between studies. Missing percentages for MT prediction variables in PROMMTT ranged from 2.2% (heart rate) to 45% (respiratory rate). For variables missing >1%, study site was associated with missingness (all p≤0.021). Survival time predicted missingness for 50% of RS and 60% of PROMMTT variables. MT models complete case proportions ranged from 41% to 88%. Complete case analysis and multiple imputation demonstrated similar correct classification results. Sensitivity analysis upper-lower bound ranges for the three MT models were 59-63%, 36-46%, and 46-58%. Prospective collection of ten-fold more variables with data quality assurance reduced overall missing data. Study site and patient survival were associated with missingness, suggesting that data were not missing completely at random, and complete case analysis may lead to biased results. Evaluating clinical prediction model accuracy may be misleading in the presence of missing data, especially with many predictor variables. The proposed sensitivity analysis estimating correct classification under upper (best case scenario)/lower (worst case scenario) bounds may be more informative than multiple imputation, which provided results similar to complete case analysis.^