Cited by 301Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical studies and practices

MMRM vs. LOCF: A Comprehensive Comparison Based on Simulation Study and 25 NDA Datasets

Siddiqui, Ohidul, Hung, H. M. James, O'Neill, Robert·2009·Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract

In recent years, the use of the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach in imputing missing data in clinical trials has been greatly criticized, and several likelihood-based modeling approaches are proposed to analyze such incomplete data. One of the proposed likelihood-based methods is the Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model. To compare the performance of LOCF and MMRM approaches in analyzing incomplete data, two extensive simulation studies are conducted, and the empirical bias and Type I error rates associated with estimators and tests of treatment effects under three missing data paradigms are evaluated. The simulation studies demonstrate that LOCF analysis can lead to substantial biases in estimators of treatment effects and can greatly inflate Type I error rates of the statistical tests, whereas MMRM analysis on the available data leads to estimators with comparatively small bias, and controls Type I error rates at a nominal level in the presence of missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR) and some possibility of missing not at random (MNAR) data. In a sensitivity analysis of 48 clinical trial datasets obtained from 25 New Drug Applications (NDA) submissions of neurological and psychiatric drug products, MMRM analysis appears to be a superior approach in controlling Type I error rates and minimizing biases, as compared to LOCF ANCOVA analysis. In the exploratory analyses of the datasets, no clear evidence of the presence of MNAR missingness is found.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10543400802609797

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siddiqui, O., Hung, H. M. J., & O'Neill, R.
Affiliations
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • a Office of Biostatistics, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration , Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Corresponding author
Siddiqui, Ohidul
Venue
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Published
2009-02-12
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
227-246
ISSN
  • 1054-3406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5711
OpenAlex
W2129152730
Cited by
301
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 20
FWCI
17.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
last observation carried forward, missing data imputation, clinical trials, type I error rate, estimation bias, missing completely at random, missing at random, missing not at random, new drug applications, neurological drugs, psychiatric medication, covariance analysis
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Psychotropic Drugs, Regression Analysis, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Bias, Likelihood Functions, Least-Squares Analysis, Databases, Factual

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