arXiv subjects

Jonathan W. Bartlett

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan W. Bartlett.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2016

Missing binary outcomes under covariate dependent missingness in cluster randomised trials

Missing outcomes are a commonly occurring problem for cluster randomised trials, which can lead to biased and inefficient inference if ignored or handled inappropriately. Two approaches for analysing such trials are cluster-level analysis and individual-level analysis. In this study, we assessed the performance of unadjusted cluster-level analysis, baseline covariate adjusted cluster-level analysis, random effects logistic regression (RELR) and generalised estimating equations (GEE) when binary outcomes are missing under a baseline covariate dependent missingness mechanism. Missing outcomes were handled using complete records analysis (CRA) and multilevel multiple imputation (MMI). We analytically show that cluster-level analyses for estimating risk ratio (RR) using complete records are valid if the true data generating model has log link and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. We performed a simulation study considering four different scenarios, depending on whether the missingness mechanisms are the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between intervention group and baseline covariate in the outcome model. Based on the simulation study and analytical results, we give guidance on the conditions under which each approach is valid.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2016

Bayesian correction for covariate measurement error: a frequentist evaluation and comparison with regression calibration

Bayesian approaches for handling covariate measurement error are well established, and yet arguably are still relatively little used by researchers. For some this is likely due to unfamiliarity or disagreement with the Bayesian inferential paradigm. For others a contributory factor is the inability of standard statistical packages to perform such Bayesian analyses. In this paper we first give an overview of the Bayesian approach to handling covariate measurement error, and contrast it with regression calibration (RC), arguably the most commonly adopted approach. We then argue why the Bayesian approach has a number of statistical advantages compared to RC, and demonstrate that implementing the Bayesian approach is usually quite feasible for the analyst. Next we describe the closely related maximum likelihood and multiple imputation approaches, and explain why we believe the Bayesian approach to generally be preferable. We then empirically compare the frequentist properties of RC and the Bayesian approach through simulation studies. The flexibility of the Bayesian approach to handle both measurement error and missing data is then illustrated through an analysis of data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2016

Missing continuous outcomes under covariate dependent missingness in cluster randomised trials

Attrition is a common occurrence in cluster randomised trials (CRTs) which leads to missing outcome data. Two approaches for analysing such trials are cluster-level analysis and individual-level analysis. This paper compares the performance of unadjusted cluster-level analysis, baseline covariate adjusted cluster-level analysis and linear mixed model (LMM) analysis, under baseline covariate dependent missingness (CDM) in continuous outcomes, in terms of bias, average estimated standard error and coverage probability. The methods of complete case analysis (CCA) and multiple imputation (MI) are used to handle the missing outcome data. Four possible scenarios are considered depending on whether the missingness mechanisms and covariate effects on outcome are the same or different in the two intervention groups. We show that both unadjusted cluster-level analysis and baseline covariate adjusted cluster-level analysis give unbiased estimates of the intervention effect only if both intervention groups have the same missingness mechanisms and the same covariate effects, which is arguably unlikely to hold in practice. LMM and MI give unbiased estimates under all four considered scenarios, provided that an interaction of intervention indicator and covariate is included in the model when the covariate effects are different in the two intervention groups. MI gives slightly overestimation of average standard error, which leads to a decrease in power.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2013

Multiple imputation of covariates by fully conditional specification: accommodating the substantive model

Missing covariate data commonly occur in epidemiological and clinical research, and are often dealt with using multiple imputation (MI). Imputation of partially observed covariates is complicated if the substantive model is non-linear (e.g. Cox proportional hazards model), or contains non-linear (e.g. squared) or interaction terms, and standard software implementations of MI may impute covariates from models that are incompatible with such substantive models. We show how imputation by fully conditional specification, a popular approach for performing MI, can be modified so that covariates are imputed from models which are compatible with the substantive model. We investigate through simulation the performance of this proposal, and compare it to existing approaches. Simulation results suggest our proposal gives consistent estimates for a range of common substantive models, including models which contain non-linear covariate effects or interactions, provided data are missing at random and the assumed imputation models are correctly specified and mutually compatible.

stat.ME↗