Comparison of several imputation methods for missing baseline data in propensity scores analysis of binary outcome

• Published in: Pharmaceutical statistics : the journal of the pharmaceutical industry Vol. 9; no. 4; pp. 269 - 279
• Main Authors: Crowe, Brenda J., Lipkovich, Ilya A., Wang, Ouhong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01-10-2010
• Subjects: Cohort Studies; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Dwarfism, Pituitary - epidemiology; Dwarfism, Pituitary - therapy; Humans; imputation; multiple imputation; observational study; Propensity Score; propensity scores; Random Allocation; Research Design - statistics & numerical data; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1539-1604; 1539-1612
• DOI: 10.1002/pst.389

We performed a simulation study comparing the statistical properties of the estimated log odds ratio from propensity scores analyses of a binary response variable, in which missing baseline data had been imputed using a simple imputation scheme (Treatment Mean Imputation), compared with three ways of performing multiple imputation (MI) and with a Complete Case analysis. MI that included treatment (treated/untreated) and outcome (for our analyses, outcome was adverse event [yes/no]) in the imputer's model had the best statistical properties of the imputation schemes we studied. MI is feasible to use in situations where one has just a few outcomes to analyze. We also found that Treatment Mean Imputation performed quite well and is a reasonable alternative to MI in situations where it is not feasible to use MI. Treatment Mean Imputation performed better than MI methods that did not include both the treatment and outcome in the imputer's model. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.