Cited by 203Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with missing continuous outcome data using controlled multiple imputation: A practical guide

Open access
Cro, Suzie, Morris, Tim P., Kenward, Michael G., Carpenter, James R.·2020·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Missing data due to loss to follow-up or intercurrent events are unintended, but unfortunately inevitable in clinical trials. Since the true values of missing data are never known, it is necessary to assess the impact of untestable and unavoidable assumptions about any unobserved data in sensitivity analysis. This tutorial provides an overview of controlled multiple imputation (MI) techniques and a practical guide to their use for sensitivity analysis of trials with missing continuous outcome data. These include δ- and reference-based MI procedures. In δ-based imputation, an offset term, δ, is typically added to the expected value of the missing data to assess the impact of unobserved participants having a worse or better response than those observed. Reference-based imputation draws imputed values with some reference to observed data in other groups of the trial, typically in other treatment arms. We illustrate the accessibility of these methods using data from a pediatric eczema trial and a chronic headache trial and provide Stata code to facilitate adoption. We discuss issues surrounding the choice of δ in δ-based sensitivity analysis. We also review the debate on variance estimation within reference-based analysis and justify the use of Rubin's variance estimator in this setting, since as we further elaborate on within, it provides information anchored inference.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.8569

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. National Research Council. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. panel on handling missing data in clinical trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
  2. Ich, C. H. M. P. ICH E9 (R1) addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials to the guideline on statistical princi- ples for clinical trials. Proceedings of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; 2019.
  3. O'Kelly M, Ratitch B. Multiple Imputation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2014:284-319.
  4. Ayele BT, Lipkovich I, Molenberghs G, Mallinckrodt CH. A multiple-imputation-based approach to sensitivity analyses and effectiveness assessments in longitudinal clinical trials. J Biopharmaceut Stat. 2014;24(2):211-228.
  5. Rubin DB. Multiple imputations in sample surveys -a phenomenological Bayesian approach to nonresponse. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association; 1978:20-28.
  6. Carpenter JR, Roger JH, Cro S, Kenward MG. Response to comments by seaman et al. on analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol devia- tion, a framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation. J Biopharmaceut Stat. 2014;24(6):1363-1369.
  7. Rehal S. Implications of Missing Data in Tuberculosis Non-inferiority Clinical Trials (PhD Thesis). London, UK: University College London, University of London; 2018.
  8. Atkinson A. Reference Based Sensitivity Analysis for Time-to-Event Data (PhD thesis). London, UK: Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, University of London; 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cro, S., Morris, T. P., Kenward, M. G., & Carpenter, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Ashkirk Scotland UK
Corresponding author
Cro, Suzie
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-05-17
Volume
39
Issue
21
Pages
2815-2842
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W3026799785
Cited by
203
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 3
FWCI
16.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/21, MC_UU_12023/29, grant numbers MC_UU_12023/21 and MC_UU_12023/29)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
missing data, sensitivity analysis, loss to follow-up, intercurrent events, Stata code
MeSH terms
Child, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review