A simple method for analyzing data from a randomized trial with a missing binary outcome

被引:8
作者
Stuart G Baker
Laurence S Freedman
机构
[1] Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute
[2] Dept. of Math., Stat./Comp. Sci., Bar Dan University
关键词
Adenoma; Propensity Score; Colorectal Adenoma; Binary Outcome; Adenoma Recurrence;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-3-8
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Many randomized trials involve missing binary outcomes. Although many previous adjustments for missing binary outcomes have been proposed, none of these makes explicit use of randomization to bound the bias when the data are not missing at random. Methods: We propose a novel approach that uses the randomization distribution to compute the anticipated maximum bias when missing at random does not hold due to an unobserved binary covariate (implying that missingness depends on outcome and treatment group). The anticipated maximum bias equals the product of two factors: (a) the anticipated maximum bias re were complete confounding of the unobserved covariate with treatment group among subjects with an observed outcome and (b) an upper bound factor that depends only on the fraction missing in each randomization group. If less than 15% of subjects are missing in each group, the upper bound factor is less than .18. Results: We illustrated the methodology using data from the Polyp Prevention Trial. We anticipated a maximum bias under complete confounding of .25. With only 7% and 9% missing in each arm, the upper bound factor, after adjusting for age and sex, was .10. The anticipated maximum bias of .25 × .10 =.025 would not have affected the conclusion of no treatment effect. Conclusion: This approach is easy to implement and is particularly informative when less than 15% of subjects are missing in each arm.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 7
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
Shih W.J., Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials, Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine, 3, (2002)
[2]  
Hollis S., A graphical sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with non-ignorable missing binary outcome, Statistics in Medicine, 21, pp. 3823-3834, (2002)
[3]  
Little R.J., Rubin D.B., Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, (1987)
[4]  
Baker S.G., Rosenberger W.F., DerSimonian R., Closed-form estimates for missing counts in two-way contingency tables, Statistics in Medicine, 11, pp. 643-657, (1992)
[5]  
Molenberghs G., Kenward M.G., Goetghebeur E., Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: The Slovenian plebiscite case, Applied Statistics, 40, pp. 15-29, (2001)
[6]  
Baker S.G., Laird N.M., Regression analysis for categorical variables with outcome subject to nonignorable nonresponse, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, pp. 62-69, (1988)
[7]  
Baker S.G., Ko C., Graubard B.I., A sensitivity analysis for non-randomly missing categorical data arising from a national health disability survey, Biostatistics, 4, pp. 41-56, (2003)
[8]  
Wittes J., Lakatos E., Probstfield J., Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Cardiovascular diseases, Statistics in Medicine, 8, pp. 415-425, (1989)
[9]  
Proschan M.A., McMahon R.P., Shih J.H., Hunsberger S.A., Geller N.I., Knatterud G., Wittes J., Sensitivity analysis using an imputation method for missing binary data in clinical trials, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 96, pp. 155-165, (2001)
[10]  
Vach W., Blettner M., Logistic regression with incompletely observed categorical covariates-investigating the sensitivity against violation of the missing at random assumption, Statistics in Medicine, 14, pp. 1315-1329, (1995)