Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Loss to follow-up is often hard to avoid in randomised trials. This article suggests a framework for intention to treat analysis that depends on making plausible assumptions about the missing data and including all participants in sensitivity analyses

Related collections

Most cited references 12

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

MMRM vs. LOCF: a comprehensive comparison based on simulation study and 25 NDA datasets.

Ohidul Siddiqui, H Hung, Robert O'Neill (2009)

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.