Cited by 67Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Reference-based Sensitivity Analysis via Multiple Imputation for Longitudinal Trials with Protocol Deviation

Open access
Cro, Suzie, Morris, Tim P., Kenward, Michael G., Carpenter, James R.·2016·The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials provide essential evidence for the evaluation of new and existing medical treatments. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis is often complicated by the occurrence of protocol deviations, which mean we cannot always measure the intended outcomes for individuals who deviate, resulting in a missing-data problem. In such settings, however one approaches the analysis, an untestable assumption about the distribution of the unobserved data must be made. To understand how far the results depend on these assumptions, the primary analysis should be supplemented by a range of sensitivity analyses, which explore how the conclusions vary over a range of different credible assumptions for the missing data. In this article, we describe a new command, mimix, that can be used to perform reference-based sensitivity analyses for randomized controlled trials with longitudinal quantitative outcome data, using the approach proposed by Carpenter, Roger, and Kenward (2013, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 23: 1352–1371). Under this approach, we make qualitative assumptions about how individuals’ missing outcomes relate to those observed in relevant groups in the trial, based on plausible clinical scenarios. Statistical analysis then proceeds using the method of multiple imputation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1536867x1601600211

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 17 · Cited by 67

Authors
Cro, S., Morris, T. P., Kenward, M. G., & Carpenter, J. R.
Affiliations
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Cro, Suzie
  • Morris, Tim P.
  • Kenward, Michael G.
  • Carpenter, James R.
Venue
The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata
Published
2016-06
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
443-463
ISSN
  • 1536-867X (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-8734
OpenAlex
W2500421979
Cited by
67
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Funders
Medical Research Council
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
protocol deviations, missing data, sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation, longitudinal data, randomized controlled trials, Stata, missing outcome data

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