BACKGROUND: In many clinical trials, data are collected longitudinally over time. In such studies, missingness, in particular dropout, is an often encountered phenomenon. METHODS: We discuss commonly used but often problematic methods such as complete case analysis and last observation carried forward and contrast them with broadly valid and easy to implement direct-likelihood methods. We comment on alternatives such as multiple imputation and the expectation-maximization algorithm. RESULTS: We apply these methods in particular to data from a study with continuous outcomes. The outcomes are modelled using a general linear mixed-effects model. The bias with CC and LOCF is established in the case study and the advantages of the direct-likelihood approach shown. CONCLUSIONS: We have established formal but easy to understand arguments for a shift towards a direct-likelihood paradigm when analysing incomplete data from longitudinal clinical trials, necessitating neither imputation nor deletion.
BACKGROUND: In many clinical trials, data are collected longitudinally over time. In such studies, missingness, in particular dropout, is an often encountered phenomenon. METHODS: We discuss commonly used but often problematic methods such as complete case analysis and last observation carried forward and contrast them with broadly valid and easy to implement direct-likelihood methods. We comment on alternatives such as multiple imputation and the expectation-maximization algorithm. RESULTS: We apply these methods in particular to data from a study with continuous outcomes. The outcomes are modelled using a general linear mixed-effects model. The bias with CC and LOCF is established in the case study and the advantages of the direct-likelihood approach shown. CONCLUSIONS: We have established formal but easy to understand arguments for a shift towards a direct-likelihood paradigm when analysing incomplete data from longitudinal clinical trials, necessitating neither imputation nor deletion.
Authors: Joel T Sherrill; David I Sommers; Andrew A Nierenberg; Andrew C Leon; Stephan Arndt; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Joel Greenhouse; Donald Guthrie; Sharon-Lise Normand; Katharine A Phillips; M Katherine Shear; Robert Woolson Journal: Acad Psychiatry Date: 2009 May-Jun
Authors: Boris Kovatchev; Stacey M Anderson; Dan Raghinaru; Yogish C Kudva; Lori M Laffel; Carol Levy; Jordan E Pinsker; R Paul Wadwa; Bruce Buckingham; Francis J Doyle; Sue A Brown; Mei Mei Church; Vikash Dadlani; Eyal Dassau; Laya Ekhlaspour; Gregory P Forlenza; Elvira Isganaitis; David W Lam; John Lum; Roy W Beck Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Douglas R Thompson; Eva Obarzanek; Debra L Franko; Bruce A Barton; John Morrison; Frank M Biro; Stephen R Daniels; Ruth H Striegel-Moore Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Mireille E Schnitzer; Erica E M Moodie; Mark J van der Laan; Robert W Platt; Marina B Klein Journal: Biometrics Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 2.571