53
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials

      research-article
      , ,   ,
      Pharmacoeconomics
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Missing data are a frequent problem in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) within a randomised controlled trial. Inappropriate methods to handle missing data can lead to misleading results and ultimately can affect the decision of whether an intervention is good value for money. This article provides practical guidance on how to handle missing data in within-trial CEAs following a principled approach: (i) the analysis should be based on a plausible assumption for the missing data mechanism, i.e. whether the probability that data are missing is independent of or dependent on the observed and/or unobserved values; (ii) the method chosen for the base-case should fit with the assumed mechanism; and (iii) sensitivity analysis should be conducted to explore to what extent the results change with the assumption made. This approach is implemented in three stages, which are described in detail: (1) descriptive analysis to inform the assumption on the missing data mechanism; (2) how to choose between alternative methods given their underlying assumptions; and (3) methods for sensitivity analysis. The case study illustrates how to apply this approach in practice, including software code. The article concludes with recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The burden of multiple sclerosis: A community health survey

          Background Health-related quality of life (HRQL) in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) who reside within the community relative to the general population is largely unknown. Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 1.1 (CCHS 1.1) were used to compare HRQL of persons with MS and the general population. Methods A representative sample of adults (18 years or older) from the cross sectional population health survey, CCHS 1.1, was examined to compare scores on the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), a generic preference-based HRQL measure, of respondents with (n = 302) and without (n = 109,741) MS. Selected sociodemographic covariates were adjusted for in ANCOVA models. Normalized sampling weights and bootstrap variance estimates were used in the analysis. Results The mean difference in overall HUI3 scores between respondents with and without MS was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.31); eight times greater than the clinically important difference. The largest differences in scores were seen with the ambulation (0.26; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.32) and pain attributes (0.14; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.19). Clinically important differences with dexterity and cognition were also observed. Conclusion While the proportion of the Canadian population with MS is relatively small in comparison to other diseases, the magnitude of the burden is severe relative to the general population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Analyzing incomplete longitudinal clinical trial data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Multiple imputation of missing covariates with non-linear effects and interactions: an evaluation of statistical methods

              Background Multiple imputation is often used for missing data. When a model contains as covariates more than one function of a variable, it is not obvious how best to impute missing values in these covariates. Consider a regression with outcome Y and covariates X and X 2. In 'passive imputation' a value X* is imputed for X and then X 2 is imputed as (X*)2. A recent proposal is to treat X 2 as 'just another variable' (JAV) and impute X and X 2 under multivariate normality. Methods We use simulation to investigate the performance of three methods that can easily be implemented in standard software: 1) linear regression of X on Y to impute X then passive imputation of X 2; 2) the same regression but with predictive mean matching (PMM); and 3) JAV. We also investigate the performance of analogous methods when the analysis involves an interaction, and study the theoretical properties of JAV. The application of the methods when complete or incomplete confounders are also present is illustrated using data from the EPIC Study. Results JAV gives consistent estimation when the analysis is linear regression with a quadratic or interaction term and X is missing completely at random. When X is missing at random, JAV may be biased, but this bias is generally less than for passive imputation and PMM. Coverage for JAV was usually good when bias was small. However, in some scenarios with a more pronounced quadratic effect, bias was large and coverage poor. When the analysis was logistic regression, JAV's performance was sometimes very poor. PMM generally improved on passive imputation, in terms of bias and coverage, but did not eliminate the bias. Conclusions Given the current state of available software, JAV is the best of a set of imperfect imputation methods for linear regression with a quadratic or interaction effect, but should not be used for logistic regression.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44-(0)1904-321435 , rita.nevesdefaria@york.ac.uk
                Journal
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1170-7690
                1179-2027
                29 July 2014
                29 July 2014
                2014
                : 32
                : 12
                : 1157-1170
                Affiliations
                [ ]Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD UK
                [ ]Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [ ]Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
                [ ]Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK
                Article
                193
                10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
                4244574
                25069632
                22690592-1e7e-4045-8ce7-cdadc1085292
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                Categories
                Practical Application
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

                Economics of health & social care
                Economics of health & social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article