↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a weighting approach for performing sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of a weighting approach for performing sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0074-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panteha Hayati Rezvan, Ian R. White, Katherine J. Lee, John B. Carlin, Julie A. Simpson

Abstract

Multiple imputation (MI) is a well-recognised statistical technique for handling missing data. As usually implemented in standard statistical software, MI assumes that data are 'Missing at random' (MAR); an assumption that in many settings is implausible. It is not possible to distinguish whether data are MAR or 'Missing not at random' (MNAR) using the observed data, so it is desirable to discover the impact of departures from the MAR assumption on the MI results by conducting sensitivity analyses. A weighting approach based on a selection model has been proposed for performing MNAR analyses to assess the robustness of results obtained under standard MI to departures from MAR. In this article, we use simulation to evaluate the weighting approach as a method for exploring possible departures from MAR, with missingness in a single variable, where the parameters of interest are the marginal mean (and probability) of a partially observed outcome variable and a measure of association between the outcome and a fully observed exposure. The simulation studies compare the weighting-based MNAR estimates for various numbers of imputations in small and large samples, for moderate to large magnitudes of departure from MAR, where the degree of departure from MAR was assumed known. Further, we evaluated a proposed graphical method, which uses the dataset with missing data, for obtaining a plausible range of values for the parameter that quantifies the magnitude of departure from MAR. Our simulation studies confirm that the weighting approach outperformed the MAR approach, but it still suffered from bias. In particular, our findings demonstrate that the weighting approach provides biased parameter estimates, even when a large number of imputations is performed. In the examples presented, the graphical approach for selecting a range of values for the possible departures from MAR did not capture the true parameter value of departure used in generating the data. Overall, the weighting approach is not recommended for sensitivity analyses following MI, and further research is required to develop more appropriate methods to perform such sensitivity analyses.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%