PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16279357

Analysis of longitudinal binary data with missing data due to dropouts.

Abstract

Longitudinal binary data from clinical trials with missing observations are frequently analyzed by using the Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) method for imputing missing values at a visit (e.g., the prospectively defined primary visit time point for analysis at the end of treatment period). Usually, to understand time trend in treatment response, analyses are also performed separately on data at intermediate time points. The objective of such analyses is to estimate the proportion of "response" at a time point and then to compare two treatment groups (e.g., drug vs. placebo) by testing for the difference in the two proportions of response. The commonly used methods are Fisher's exact test, chi-squared test, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, and logistic regression. Analyses based on the Observed Cases (OC) data are usually also performed and compared with those obtained by LOCF. Another approach that is gaining popularity (after the introduction of PROC GENMOD by the SAS Institute) is to use the method of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with a view to include all repeated observations in the analysis in a more comprehensive manner. It is now well recognized, however, that results obtained by these methods are susceptible to bias, depending on the "missing data mechanism." Of particular concern is the bias introduced by NMAR dropouts. Because there is no one method to satisfactorily handle dropouts in data analysis, consensus is gathering toward doing analyses by several methods (including methods to handle NMAR dropouts) to evaluate sensitivity of results to model assumptions. In this article, we demonstrate application of the following methods for handling dropouts in longitudinal binary data: Generalized Linear Mixture Models (GLMM) (for handling NMAR dropouts), Weighted GEE (for handling MAR dropouts), and GEE (MCAR dropouts). The results are also compared with those obtained by logistic regression (univariate) on both LOCF and OC data.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mirza W Ali, Enayet Talukder. 2005. Analysis of longitudinal binary data with missing data due to dropouts.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400500266692

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗