Abstract
Missing outcomes data represent a common threat to the validity and robustness of clinical trials and prospective epidemiologic studies with time-to-event outcomes. Several studies have outlined the importance of critically evaluating missing outcome data in clinical studies, as well as the relevance of multiple imputations (MI) in this context. Recent MI extensions, namely controlled-MI, have been introduced as a viable alternative for sensitivity analysis in the presence of informative censoring, yet they lack validation based on real data. In this study we used data from a randomized trial to generate realistic scenarios of potential censoring mechanisms, used to assess the practical relevance of several imputation approaches for missing outcome data. Our results confirm the relevance of multiple imputations approaches, especially in studies with long follow-up and higher proportion of potentially informative censoring. This first study comparing MI and controlled-MI approaches for missing outcome data can help practitioners appreciate the advantages of different imputation approaches under realistic settings in prospective studies in clinical epidemiology.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Sources of Funding: The DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial was supported by an institutional research grant to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca.
Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. AB and SAM, are members of the TIMI Study Group which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from: Abbott, Abiomed, Inc., Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Saghmos Therapeutics, Inc., Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., Softcell Medical Limited, The Medicines Company, Verve Therapeutics, Inc., Zora Biosciences
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01730534.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
