The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MMRM vs. LOCF: A Comprehensive Comparison Based on Simulation Study and 25 NDA Datasets
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Missing data were managed using LMM, which is based on all observed data and accounts for data missing at random [108-110].”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Analysis With Missing Data
Lahiff, M., Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289883 · Cited by 17,385
RUBIN, D. B. (1976) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581 · Cited by 9,925
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
Statistical Analysis with Missing Data
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119013563 · Cited by 8,473
Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2011) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119513469 · Cited by 4,639
Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Verbeke, G. (1997) · Lecture Notes in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2294-1_3 · Cited by 3,506
Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Molenberghs, G., & Verbeke, G. N. (2000) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0300-6 · Cited by 2,681
Modeling the Drop-Out Mechanism in Repeated-Measures Studies
Little, R. J. A. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476615 · Cited by 1,522
Informative Drop-Out in Longitudinal Data Analysis
Diggle, P. J., & Kenward, M. G. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · doi:10.2307/2986113 · Cited by 1,472
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-2265 · Cited by 1,385
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data
White, I. R., Horton, N. J., Carpenter, J. R., statistics, R. I. M. A. S., & Pocock, S. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d40 · Cited by 869
Douillard, J. Y., Siena, S., Cassidy, J., Tabernero, J., Burkes, R., Barugel, M., Humblet, Y., Bodoky, G., Cunningham, D., Jassem, J., et al. (2014) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu141 · Cited by 606
Moriarty, P. M., Thompson, P. D., Cannon, C. P., Guyton, J. R., Bergeron, J., Zieve, F. J., Bruckert, E., Jacobson, T. A., Kopecky, S. L., Baccara-Dinet, M. T., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Lipidology · doi:10.1016/j.jacl.2015.08.006 · Cited by 470
Randomized controlled trial of atorvastatin in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: LEADe
Feldman, H. H., Doody, R. S., Kivipelto, M., Sparks, D. L., Waters, D. D., Jones, R. W., Schwam, E., Schindler, R., Hey-Hadavi, J., DeMicco, D. A., et al. (2010) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181d6476a · Cited by 438
Uher, R., Tansey, K. E., Dew, T., Maier, W., Mors, O., Hauser, J., Dernovsek, M. Z., Henigsberg, N., Souery, D., Farmer, A., et al. (2014) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14010094 · Cited by 418
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Hung, H. M. James
- Venue
- Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
