Reference-based Sensitivity Analysis via Multiple Imputation for Longitudinal Trials with Protocol Deviation
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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?
Missing data were imputed using the Randomized Arm missing at random approach with the RefBasedMI R library.
“Missing data were imputed using the “Randomized Arm missing at randommar” [38] approach using the RefBasedMI R library.”
From Evaluation of the Impact of Mobile Health App Vitadio in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 443-463
- ISSN
- 1536-867X (ISSN-L)
- 1536-8734
- PMC
- PMC5796638
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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