PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9290219

Weighted estimating equations with nonignorably missing response data.

A B Troxel·S R Lipsitz·T A Brennan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We propose weighted estimating equations for data with nonignorable nonresponse in order to reduce the bias that can occur with a complete case analysis. A survey concerning medical practice guidelines, malpractice litigation, and settlement provides the framework. The survey was sent to recipients in two waves: those who responded on the first or second wave are used to estimate a nonignorable nonresponse model, while the fraction of recipients who never responded is used to allow the percentage of missing data to change with each wave. We use the structure of the GEE of Liang and Zeger (1986, Biometrika 73, 13-22), adding weights equal to the inverse probability of being observed. We present simulations demonstrating the bias that can occur with an unweighted analysis and use the survey data to illustrate the methods.

Explore related subjects

BiasBiometryGuidelines as TopicHumansMalpracticeModels, StatisticalPhysiciansProbabilitySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A B Troxel, S R Lipsitz, T A Brennan. 1997. Weighted estimating equations with nonignorably missing response data.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9290219/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗