PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10535056

[Roaming through methodology. XVI. What to do about missing data].

Abstract

Medical scientific research involving multiple measurements in patients is usually complicated by missing values. In case of missing values the choice is to limit the analysis to the complete cases or to analyse all available data. Both methods may suffer from substantial bias and may only be applied in a valid way if the rather strong assumption of 'missing completely at random' holds for the missing values, i.e. the missing value is not related to the other measured data nor to unmeasured data. Two other statistical methods may be applied to deal with missing values: the likelihood approach and the multiple imputation method. These methods make efficient use of all available data and take into account information implied by the available data. These methods are valid under the less stringent assumption of 'missing at random', i.e. the missing value is related to the other measured data, but not to unmeasured data. The best approach is to ensure that no data are missing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Stijnen, L R Arends. 1999-10-02. [Roaming through methodology. XVI. What to do about missing data].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10535056/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Magnitude and quality of antibody response to a combination hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine.

Interference between antibodies generated by a combination hepatitis A and B vaccine was investigated by evaluating the quantity and quality of anti-hepatitis A virus (HAV) and anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs) antibodies generated by Twinrix (Hepatitis A Inactivated and Hepatitis B (Recombinant) Vaccine). The magnitude of the immune response was determined by a retrospective analysis of eight clinical trials, completed during stepwise development of Twinrix. The functionality of anti-HAV was evaluated by comparison of routine ELISA results with neutralization assays and was further characterized by defining the epitope-specificity of binding. Functionality of the anti-HBs response was not tested because a validated assay was not developed at the time this study was conducted. Results of all analyses demonstrated that the combination vaccine induced high antibody titers against hepatitis A and B and a functional anti-HAV response, with no evidence of immune interference to either viral antigen.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Allocation of subjects to test null relative risks smaller than one.

Allocating a proportion k'=1/(1+ radicalr(0)) of subjects to an intervention is a practical approach to approximately maximize power for testing whether an intervention reduces relative risk of disease below a null ratio r(0)<1. Furthermore, allocating k'(s), a convenient fraction close to k', to intervention performs nearly as well; for example, allocating k'(s)=3/5 for 0.5> or =r(0)>0.33,2/3 for 0.33> or =r(0)>0.17 and 3/4 for 0.17> or =r(0)> or =0.10. Both k' and k'(s) are easily calculated and invariant to alterations in disease rate estimates under null and alternative hypotheses, when r(0) remains constant. In examples that we studied, allocating k' (or k'(s)) subjects to intervention achieved close to the minimum possible sample size, given test size and power (equivalently, maximum power, given test size and sample size), for likelihood score tests. Compared to equal allocation, k' and k'(s) reduced sample sizes by amounts ranging from approximately 5.5 per cent for r(0)=0.50 to approximately 24 per cent for r(0)=0.10. These sample size savings may be particularly important for large studies of prophylactic interventions such as vaccines. While k' was derived from variance minimization for an arcsine transformation, we do not recommend the arcsine test, since its true size exceeded the nominal value. In contrast, the true size for the uncorrected score test was less than the nominal size. A skewness correction made the size of the score test very close to the nominal level and slightly increased power. We recommend using the score test, or the skewness-corrected score test, for planing studies designed to show a ratio of proportions is less than a prespecified null ratio r(0)<1.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗