Principled Approaches to Missing Data in Epidemiologic Studies

• Published in: American journal of epidemiology Vol. 187; no. 3; pp. 568 - 575
• Main Authors: Perkins, Neil J, Cole, Stephen R, Harel, Ofer, Tchetgen Tchetgen, Eric J, Sun, BaoLuo, Mitchell, Emily M, Schisterman, Enrique F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 01.03.2018; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Confidence intervals; Data Accuracy; Data analysis; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Epidemiologic Research Design; Epidemiologic Studies; Epidemiology; Female; Humans; Miscarriage; Missing data; Nomenclature; Practice of Epidemiology; Pregnancy; Smoking; Statistical analysis; Weighting; complete-case analysis; multiple imputation; bias (epidemiology); inverse probability weighting; missing data
• ISSN: 0002-9262; 1476-6256; 1476-6256
• DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx348

Abstract Principled methods with which to appropriately analyze missing data have long existed; however, broad implementation of these methods remains challenging. In this and 2 companion papers (Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):576–584 and Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(3):585–591), we discuss issues pertaining to missing data in the epidemiologic literature. We provide details regarding missing-data mechanisms and nomenclature and encourage the conduct of principled analyses through a detailed comparison of multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting. Data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project, a multisite US study conducted from 1959 to 1974, are used to create a masked data-analytical challenge with missing data induced by known mechanisms. We illustrate the deleterious effects of missing data with naive methods and show how principled methods can sometimes mitigate such effects. For example, when data were missing at random, naive methods showed a spurious protective effect of smoking on the risk of spontaneous abortion (odds ratio (OR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19, 0.93), while implementation of principled methods multiple imputation (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.77) or augmented inverse probability weighting (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.97) provided estimates closer to the “true” full-data effect (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.64). We call for greater acknowledgement of and attention to missing data and for the broad use of principled missing-data methods in epidemiologic research.