A review of the use of controlled multiple imputation in randomised controlled trials with missing outcome data

• Published in: BMC medical research methodology Vol. 21; no. 1; p. 72
• Main Authors: Tan, Ping-Tee, Cro, Suzie, Van Vogt, Eleanor, Szigeti, Matyas, Cornelius, Victoria R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 15.04.2021; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Analysis; Clinical trials; Controlled multiple imputation; Evaluation; Medical research; Methods; Missing data; Multiple imputation; Multiple imputation (Statistics); Randomised controlled trials; Research methodology; Sensitivity analysis; Statistical analysis; Statistical methods; Variables; United Kingdom; Missing data; Sensitivity analysis; Multiple imputation; Randomised controlled trials; Controlled multiple imputation
• DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01261-6
• ISSN: 1471-2288

Missing data are common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and can bias results if not handled appropriately. A statistically valid analysis under the primary missing-data assumptions should be conducted, followed by sensitivity analysis under alternative justified assumptions to assess the robustness of results. Controlled Multiple Imputation (MI) procedures, including delta-based and reference-based approaches, have been developed for analysis under missing-not-at-random assumptions. However, it is unclear how often these methods are used, how they are reported, and what their impact is on trial results. This review evaluates the current use and reporting of MI and controlled MI in RCTs. A targeted review of phase II-IV RCTs (non-cluster randomised) published in two leading general medical journals (The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) between January 2014 and December 2019 using MI. Data was extracted on imputation methods, analysis status, and reporting of results. Results of primary and sensitivity analyses for trials using controlled MI analyses were compared. A total of 118 RCTs (9% of published RCTs) used some form of MI. MI under missing-at-random was used in 110 trials; this was for primary analysis in 43/118 (36%), and in sensitivity analysis for 70/118 (59%) (3 used in both). Sixteen studies performed controlled MI (1.3% of published RCTs), either with a delta-based (n = 9) or reference-based approach (n = 7). Controlled MI was mostly used in sensitivity analysis (n = 14/16). Two trials used controlled MI for primary analysis, including one reporting no sensitivity analysis whilst the other reported similar results without imputation. Of the 14 trials using controlled MI in sensitivity analysis, 12 yielded comparable results to the primary analysis whereas 2 demonstrated contradicting results. Only 5/110 (5%) trials using missing-at-random MI and 5/16 (31%) trials using controlled MI reported complete details on MI methods. Controlled MI enabled the impact of accessible contextually relevant missing data assumptions to be examined on trial results. The use of controlled MI is increasing but is still infrequent and poorly reported where used. There is a need for improved reporting on the implementation of MI analyses and choice of controlled MI parameters.