Jos Twisk1, Michiel de Boer, Wieke de Vente, Martijn Heymans. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, de Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands. jwr.twisk@vumc.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As a result of the development of sophisticated techniques, such as multiple imputation, the interest in handling missing data in longitudinal studies has increased enormously in past years. Within the field of longitudinal data analysis, there is a current debate on whether it is necessary to use multiple imputations before performing a mixed-model analysis to analyze the longitudinal data. In the current study this necessity is evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The results of mixed-model analyses with and without multiple imputation were compared with each other. Four data sets with missing values were created-one data set with missing completely at random, two data sets with missing at random, and one data set with missing not at random). In all data sets, the relationship between a continuous outcome variable and two different covariates were analyzed: a time-independent dichotomous covariate and a time-dependent continuous covariate. RESULTS: Although for all types of missing data, the results of the mixed-model analysis with or without multiple imputations were slightly different, they were not in favor of one of the two approaches. In addition, repeating the multiple imputations 100 times showed that the results of the mixed-model analysis with multiple imputation were quite unstable. CONCLUSION: It is not necessary to handle missing data using multiple imputations before performing a mixed-model analysis on longitudinal data.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As a result of the development of sophisticated techniques, such as multiple imputation, the interest in handling missing data in longitudinal studies has increased enormously in past years. Within the field of longitudinal data analysis, there is a current debate on whether it is necessary to use multiple imputations before performing a mixed-model analysis to analyze the longitudinal data. In the current study this necessity is evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The results of mixed-model analyses with and without multiple imputation were compared with each other. Four data sets with missing values were created-one data set with missing completely at random, two data sets with missing at random, and one data set with missing not at random). In all data sets, the relationship between a continuous outcome variable and two different covariates were analyzed: a time-independent dichotomous covariate and a time-dependent continuous covariate. RESULTS: Although for all types of missing data, the results of the mixed-model analysis with or without multiple imputations were slightly different, they were not in favor of one of the two approaches. In addition, repeating the multiple imputations 100 times showed that the results of the mixed-model analysis with multiple imputation were quite unstable. CONCLUSION: It is not necessary to handle missing data using multiple imputations before performing a mixed-model analysis on longitudinal data.
Authors: Freda M Warner; Bobo Tong; Catherine R Jutzeler; Jacquelyn J Cragg; Paulina S Scheuren; John L K Kramer Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Mary Beth Miller; Wai Sze Chan; Jeff Boissoneault; Michael Robinson; Roland Staud; Richard B Berry; Christina S McCrae Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Kumaravel Rajakumar; Charity G Moore; Arshad T Khalid; Abbe N Vallejo; Mohamed A Virji; Michael F Holick; Susan L Greenspan; Silva Arslanian; Steven E Reis Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Kelley A Jones; Lisa Ripper; Taylor Paglisotti; Paul Mulbah; Kaleab Z Abebe Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Marinda Henskens; Ilse M Nauta; Marieke C A van Eekeren; Erik J A Scherder Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Electra D Paskett; Ryan D Baltic; Gregory S Young; Mira L Katz; Samuel M Lesko; Kelly H Webber; Karen A Roberto; Eugene J Lengerich; Nancy E Schoenberg; Stephenie K Kennedy; Scherezade Mama; Courtney C Midkiff; Mark B Dignan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elizabeth N Mutubuki; Mohamed El Alili; Judith E Bosmans; Teddy Oosterhuis; Frank J Snoek; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Maurits W van Tulder; Johanna M van Dongen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 2.655