Multiple imputation to deal with missing EQ-5D-3L data: Should we impute individual domains or the actual index?
Tóm tắt
Missing data are a well-known and widely documented problem in cost-effectiveness analyses alongside clinical trials using individual patient-level data. Current methodological research recommends multiple imputation (MI) to deal with missing health outcome data, but there is little guidance on whether MI for multi-attribute questionnaires, such as the EQ-5D-3L, should be carried out at domain or at summary score level. In this paper, we evaluated the impact of imputing individual domains versus imputing index values to deal with missing EQ-5D-3L data using a simulation study and developed recommendations for future practice. We simulated missing data in a patient-level dataset with complete EQ-5D-3L data at one point in time from a large multinational clinical trial (n = 1,814). Different proportions of missing data were generated using a missing at random (MAR) mechanism and three different scenarios were studied. The performance of using each method was evaluated using root mean squared error and mean absolute error of the actual versus predicted EQ-5D-3L indices. In large sample sizes (n > 500) and a missing data pattern that follows mainly unit non-response, imputing domains or the index produced similar results. However, domain imputation became more accurate than index imputation with pattern of missingness following an item non-response. For smaller sample sizes (n < 100), index imputation was more accurate. When MI models were misspecified, both domain and index imputations were inaccurate for any proportion of missing data. The decision between imputing the domains or the EQ-5D-3L index scores depends on the observed missing data pattern and the sample size available for analysis. Analysts conducting this type of exercises should also evaluate the sensitivity of the analysis to the MAR assumption and whether the imputation model is correctly specified.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Briggs, A., Clark, T., Wolstenholme, J., & Clarke, P. (2003). Missing....presumed at random: Cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Economics, 12(5), 377–392.
Manca, A., & Palmer, S. (2005). Handling missing data in patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised clinical trials. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(2), 65–75.
Burton, A., Billingham, L. J., & Bryan, S. (2007). Cost-effectiveness in clinical trials: Using multiple imputation to deal with incomplete cost data. Clinical Trials, 4(2), 154–161.
Grieve, R., Cairns, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2010). Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: The use of multiple imputation for unit costs. Health Economics, 19(8), 939–954.
Oostenbrink, J. B., & Al, M. J. (2005). The analysis of incomplete cost data due to dropout. Health Economics, 14(8), 763–776.
Yu, L. M., Burton, A., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2007). Evaluation of software for multiple imputation of semi-continuous data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16(3), 243–258.
Faria, R., Gomes, M., Epstein, D., & White, I. R. (2014). A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3.
Little, R. J. & D. B. Rubin. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Noble, S. M., Hollingworth, W., & Tilling, K. (2012). Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The current state of play. Health Economics, 21(2), 187–200.
Wood, A. M., White, I. R., & Thompson, S. G. (2004). Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clinical Trials, 1(4), 368–376.
Eekhout, I., de Boer, R. M., Twisk, J. W. R., de Vet, H. C. W., & Heymans, M. W. (2012). Missing data: A systematic review of how they are reported and handled. Epidemiology, 23(5), 729–732.
EuroQol, G. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.
Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The health utilities index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Ratcliffe, J., Young, T., Longworth, L., & Buxton, M. (2005). An assessment of the impact of informative dropout and nonresponse in measuring health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D) descriptive system. Value Health, 8(1), 53–58.
Blough, D. K., Ramsey, S., Sullivan, S. D., & Yusen, R. (2009). The impact of using different imputation methods for missing quality of life scores on the estimation of the cost-effectiveness of lung-volume-reduction surgery. Health Economics, 18(1), 91–101.
Szende, A., M. Oppe, & N. Devlin.(2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. A. Szende, M. Oppe, and N. Devlin. (Eds.) Dordrecht: Springer.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. (2011). Stata Press: College Station. TX: StataCorp LP.
Molyneux, A., Kerr, R., Stratton, I., Sandercock, P., Clarke, M., Shrimpton, J., et al. (2002). International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: A randomised trial. Lancet, 360(9342), 1267–1274.
Jennett, B., & Bond, M. (1975). Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet, 1(7905), 480–484.
van Swieten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. J., & van Gijn, J. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke, 19(5), 604–607.
EuroQol Research Foundation (2014). Available from http://www.euroqol.org/. [Accessed 14 September 2014].
Van Buuren, S., Brand, J. P. L., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., & Rubin, D. B. (2006). Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 76(12), 1049–1064.
Fairbank, J., Frost, H., Wilson-MacDonald, J., Yu, L. M., Barker, K., & Collins, R. (2005). Spine stabilisation trial. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: The MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ, 330(7502), 1233.
Trial Group, K. A. T. (2009). The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 91(1), 134–141.
Rivero-Arias, O., Gray, A., Frost, H., Lamb, S. E., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). Cost-utility analysis of physiotherapy treatment compared with physiotherapy advice in low back pain. Spine, 31(12), 1381–1387.
Kendrick, T., Simons, L., Mynors-Wallis, L., Gray, A., Lathlean, J., Pickering, R., et al. (2006). Cost-effectiveness of referral for generic care or problem-solving treatment from community mental health nurses, compared with usual general practitioner care for common mental disorders: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 50–59.
Horton, N. J., & Kleinman, K. P. (2007). Much ado about nothing: A comparison of missing data methods and software to fit incomplete data regression models. American Statistician, 61(1), 79–90.
Harel, O., & Zhou, X. H. (2007). Multiple imputation: Review of theory, implementation and software. Statistics in Medicine, 26(16), 3057–3077.
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
Efron, B. (1979). The 1977 rietz lecture—bootstrap methods—another look at the Jackknife. The annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26.
Kind, P., Hardman, G., & Macran, S. (1999). UK population norms for EQ-5D. UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727.
Konig, H. H., Born, A., Gunther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. London: Sage.
Ramsey, J. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B-Statistical Methodology, 31(2), 350–371.
Carpenter, J. R., Kenward, M. G., & White, I. R. (2007). Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: A weighting approach. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16(3), 259–275.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.