Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Missing Data in Marginal Structural Models
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Missing Data in Marginal Structural Models
Do you wish to request the book?
Missing Data in Marginal Structural Models
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Missing Data in Marginal Structural Models
2019
Overview
BACKGROUND:The use of marginal structural models (MSMs) to adjust for time-varying confounding has increased in epidemiologic studies. However, in the setting of MSMs, recommendations for how best to handle missing data are contradictory. We present a plasmode simulation study to compare the validity and precision of MSMs estimates using complete case analysis (CC), multiple imputation (MI), and inverse probability weighting (IPW) in the presence of missing data on time-independent and time-varying confounders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:Simulations were based on a cohort substudy using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative which estimated the marginal causal effect of intra-articular injection use on yearly changes in knee pain. We simulated 81 scenarios with parameter values varied on missing mechanisms (MCAR, MAR, and MNAR), percentages of missing (10%, 20%, and 30%), type of confounders (time-independent, time-varying, either or both), and analytical approaches (CC, IPW, and MI). The performance of CC, IPW, and MI methods was compared using relative bias, mean squared error of the estimates of interest, and empirical power.
RESULTS:Across scenarios defined by missing data mechanism, extent of missing data, and confounder type, MI generally produced less biased estimates (range1.2%–6.7%) with better precision (range0.17–0.18) compared with IPW (relative bias−5.3% to 8.0%; precision0.19–0.53). Empirical power was constant across the scenarios using MI.
CONCLUSIONS:Under simple yet realistically constructed scenarios, MI seems to confer an advantage over IPW in MSMs applications.
Publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a business of Wolters Kluwer Health,Copyright Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies
Subject
