IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v73y2017i4p1379-1387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the multiple imputation variance estimator for control‐based and delta‐adjusted pattern mixture models

Author

Listed:
  • Yongqiang Tang

Abstract

Control‐based pattern mixture models (PMM) and delta‐adjusted PMMs are commonly used as sensitivity analyses in clinical trials with non‐ignorable dropout. These PMMs assume that the statistical behavior of outcomes varies by pattern in the experimental arm in the imputation procedure, but the imputed data are typically analyzed by a standard method such as the primary analysis model. In the multiple imputation (MI) inference, Rubin's variance estimator is generally biased when the imputation and analysis models are uncongenial. One objective of the article is to quantify the bias of Rubin's variance estimator in the control‐based and delta‐adjusted PMMs for longitudinal continuous outcomes. These PMMs assume the same observed data distribution as the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). We derive analytic expressions for the MI treatment effect estimator and the associated Rubin's variance in these PMMs and MMRM as functions of the maximum likelihood estimator from the MMRM analysis and the observed proportion of subjects in each dropout pattern when the number of imputations is infinite. The asymptotic bias is generally small or negligible in the delta‐adjusted PMM, but can be sizable in the control‐based PMM. This indicates that the inference based on Rubin's rule is approximately valid in the delta‐adjusted PMM. A simple variance estimator is proposed to ensure asymptotically valid MI inferences in these PMMs, and compared with the bootstrap variance. The proposed method is illustrated by the analysis of an antidepressant trial, and its performance is further evaluated via a simulation study.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongqiang Tang, 2017. "On the multiple imputation variance estimator for control‐based and delta‐adjusted pattern mixture models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1379-1387, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:73:y:2017:i:4:p:1379-1387
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.12702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12702
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.12702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jae Kwang Kim & J. Michael Brick & Wayne A. Fuller & Graham Kalton, 2006. "On the bias of the multiple‐imputation variance estimator in survey sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 68(3), pages 509-521, June.
    2. Chenguang Wang & Michael J. Daniels, 2011. "A Note on MAR, Identifying Restrictions, Model Comparison, and Sensitivity Analysis in Pattern Mixture Models with and without Covariates for Incomplete Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 810-818, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toni P. Miles & Changle Li & M. Mahmud Khan & Rana Bayakly & Deborah Carr, 2023. "Estimating Prevalence of Bereavement, Its Contribution to Risk for Binge Drinking, and Other High-Risk Health States in a State Population Survey, 2019 Georgia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Surv," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Młodak Andrzej, 2021. "An application of a complex measure to model–based imputation in business statistics," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-28, March.
    3. Tian Li & Julian M. Somers & Xiaoqiong J. Hu & Lawrence C. McCandless, 2019. "Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Non-ignorable Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 11(1), pages 184-205, April.
    4. Shaun R. Seaman & Ian R. White & Andrew J. Copas & Leah Li, 2012. "Combining Multiple Imputation and Inverse-Probability Weighting," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 129-137, March.
    5. Sullivan, Danielle & Andridge, Rebecca, 2015. "A hot deck imputation procedure for multiply imputing nonignorable missing data: The proxy pattern-mixture hot deck," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 173-185.
    6. Xiaojun Mao & Zhonglei Wang & Shu Yang, 2023. "Matrix completion under complex survey sampling," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 75(3), pages 463-492, June.
    7. Rashid, S. & Mitra, R. & Steele, R.J., 2015. "Using mixtures of t densities to make inferences in the presence of missing data with a small number of multiply imputed data sets," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 84-96.
    8. Andrea Gabrio & Michael J. Daniels & Gianluca Baio, 2020. "A Bayesian parametric approach to handle missing longitudinal outcome data in trial‐based health economic evaluations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 607-629, February.
    9. Wang, Y. & Daniels, M.J., 2013. "Bayesian modeling of the dependence in longitudinal data via partial autocorrelations and marginal variances," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 130-140.
    10. Rebecca R. Andridge & Roderick J. A. Little, 2010. "A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non‐response," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(1), pages 40-64, April.
    11. Lili Yu & Yichuan Zhao, 2022. "A Bootstrap Method for a Multiple-Imputation Variance Estimator in Survey Sampling," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-11, November.
    12. Michael J. Daniels & Arkendu S. Chatterjee & Chenguang Wang, 2012. "Bayesian Model Selection for Incomplete Data Using the Posterior Predictive Distribution," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1055-1063, December.
    13. Hang J. Kim & Jörg Drechsler & Katherine J. Thompson, 2021. "Synthetic microdata for establishment surveys under informative sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 255-281, January.
    14. Corder Nathan & Yang Shu, 2020. "Estimating Average Treatment Effects Utilizing Fractional Imputation when Confounders are Subject to Missingness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 249-271, January.
    15. Andrzej Młodak, 2021. "An application of a complex measure to model–based imputation in business statistics," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Kreutzmann, Ann-Kristin & Marek, Philipp & Salvati, Nicola & Schmid, Timo, 2019. "Estimating regional wealth in Germany: How different are East and West really?," Discussion Papers 35/2019, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    17. Andridge Rebecca R. & Little Roderick J.A., 2020. "Proxy Pattern-Mixture Analysis for a Binary Variable Subject to Nonresponse," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 703-728, September.
    18. Corder Nathan & Yang Shu, 2020. "Estimating Average Treatment Effects Utilizing Fractional Imputation when Confounders are Subject to Missingness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 249-271, January.
    19. Antonio R. Linero & Michael J. Daniels, 2015. "A Flexible Bayesian Approach to Monotone Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies With Nonignorable Missingness With Application to an Acute Schizophrenia Clinical Trial," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(509), pages 45-55, March.
    20. Zinn, Sabine & Bayer, Michael, 2021. "Subjektive Belastung der Eltern durch die Beschulung ihrer Kinder zu Hause zu Zeiten des Corona-bedingten Lockdowns im Frühjahr 2020," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 339-365.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:73:y:2017:i:4:p:1379-1387. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.