RESUMEN
Missing outcomes are a commonly occurring problem for cluster randomised trials, which can lead to biased and inefficient inference if ignored or handled inappropriately. Two approaches for analysing such trials are cluster-level analysis and individual-level analysis. In this study, we assessed the performance of unadjusted cluster-level analysis, baseline covariate-adjusted cluster-level analysis, random effects logistic regression and generalised estimating equations when binary outcomes are missing under a baseline covariate-dependent missingness mechanism. Missing outcomes were handled using complete records analysis and multilevel multiple imputation. We analytically show that cluster-level analyses for estimating risk ratio using complete records are valid if the true data generating model has log link and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. We performed a simulation study considering four different scenarios, depending on whether the missingness mechanisms are the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between intervention group and baseline covariate in the outcome model. On the basis of the simulation study and analytical results, we give guidance on the conditions under which each approach is valid. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Asunto(s)
Sesgo , Análisis por Conglomerados , Modelos Logísticos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos , Biometría/métodos , Simulación por Computador , Métodos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Missing outcomes can seriously impair the ability to make correct inferences from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Complete case (CC) analysis is commonly used, but it reduces sample size and is perceived to lead to reduced statistical efficiency of estimates while increasing the potential for bias. As multiple imputation (MI) methods preserve sample size, they are generally viewed as the preferred analytical approach. We examined this assumption, comparing the performance of CC and MI methods to determine risk difference (RD) estimates in the presence of missing binary outcomes. We conducted simulation studies of 5000 simulated data sets with 50 imputations of RCTs with one primary follow-up endpoint at different underlying levels of RD (3-25 %) and missing outcomes (5-30 %). RESULTS: For missing at random (MAR) or missing completely at random (MCAR) outcomes, CC method estimates generally remained unbiased and achieved precision similar to or better than MI methods, and high statistical coverage. Missing not at random (MNAR) scenarios yielded invalid inferences with both methods. Effect size estimate bias was reduced in MI methods by always including group membership even if this was unrelated to missingness. Surprisingly, under MAR and MCAR conditions in the assessed scenarios, MI offered no statistical advantage over CC methods. CONCLUSION: While MI must inherently accompany CC methods for intention-to-treat analyses, these findings endorse CC methods for per protocol risk difference analyses in these conditions. These findings provide an argument for the use of the CC approach to always complement MI analyses, with the usual caveat that the validity of the mechanism for missingness be thoroughly discussed. More importantly, researchers should strive to collect as much data as possible.