Bias and Efficiency Comparison between Multiple Imputation and Available-Case Analysis for Missing Data in Longitudinal Models

纵向模型中缺失数据多重插补与可用案例分析的偏差和效率比较

阅读:1

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the performance of available-case analysis (ACA) and several multiple imputation (MI) approaches for handling missing data problems in longitudinal analysis through estimation bias and relative efficiency. When the missingness of covariates depends on observed responses, ACA produces estimation bias, but it is preferred when there are only missing values in longitudinal responses. Multilevel MI methods are not always a solution to longitudinal data analysis. Single-level MI methods, like fully conditional specification (FCS), provide unbiased estimates under a variety of missing data scenarios, and improve efficiency gain in certain scenarios. The general assumption of missing data mechanism is missing at random (MAR). We carry out a systematic synthetic data analysis where missing data exist in longitudinal outcomes or/and covariates under different kinds of missing data generation procedures. The analysis model is a linear mixed-effects model. For each of the missing data scenarios, we give our recommendation (between ACA and a specific MI method) based on theoretical justifications and extensive simulations. In addition, a longitudinal neurodegenerative disease dataset is used as a real case study.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。