Accounting for informatively missing data in logistic regression by means of reassessment sampling

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1925-1939

  Lin, Ji ^a   Lyles, Robert H ^b  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Binary data; Logistic regression; Maximum likelihood; Non ignorable missingness

Indexed keywords

FOLIC ACID;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; FEMALE; FOLIC ACID BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MISSING DATA; SAMPLING; BLOOD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; NUTRITION; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; BODY MASS INDEX; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; FOLIC ACID; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LOGISTIC MODELS; NUTRITION SURVEYS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84926436182     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6456     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data Second Edition. Wiley: New York, 2002.
2. Vach W, Blettner M. Logistic regression with incompletely observed categorical covariates-investigating the sensitivity against violation of the missing at random assumption. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14(12):1315-1329.
3. Breslow NE, Cain KC. Logistic regression for two-stage case-control data. Biometrika 1988; 75(1):11-20.
4. Flanders WD, Greenland S. Analytic methods for two-stage case-control studies and other stratified designs. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10(5):739-747.
5. Zhao LP, Lipsitz SR. Designs and analysis of two-stage studies. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11(6):769-782.
6. Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA, Crainiceanu CM. Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, 2006.
7. Glynn RJ, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Multiple imputation in mixture models for nonignorable nonresponse with follow-ups. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993; 88(423):984-993.
8. Lyles RH, Allen AS . Estimating crude or common odds ratios in case-control studies with informatively missing exposure data. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 155(3):274-281.
9. Hansen MH, Hurwitz WN. The problem of non-response in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1946; 41(236):517-529.
10. Crawford SL, Johnson WG, Laird NM. Bayes analysis of model-based methods for nonignorable nonresponse in the Harvard Medical Practice Survey. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics 1993; 83:78-117.
11. Lyles RH, Allen AS. Missing data in the 2 × 2 table: patterns and likelihood-based analysis for cross-sectional studies with supplemental sampling. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22(4):517-534.
12. Bartholomew DJ. A method of allowing for not-at-home bias in sample surveys. Applied Statistics 1961; 10(1):52-59.
13. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/IML 9.2 User's Guide, 2008, Chapter 11.
14. Little RJA . A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1988; 83.404:1198-1202.
15. Allison PD. Missing Data. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.
16. Allison PD. Imputation of categorical variables with PROC MI. SAS Focus Session, SUGI 30 2005.
17. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide, Chapter 54, The MI Procedure, 2008.
18. Mojtabai R. Body mass index and serum folate in childbearing age women. European Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 19(10):1029-1036.
19. Lyles RH, Allen AS, Flanders WD, Kupper LL, Christensen DL. Inference for case-control studies when exposure status is both informatively missing and misclassified. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:4065-4080.
20. Spiegelman D, Gray R. Cost-efficient study designs for binary response data with Gaussian covariate measurement error. Biometrics 1991; 47:851-869.
21. Lyles RH, Williamson JM, Lin HM, Heilig CM. Extending McNemar's test: estimation and inference when paired binary outcome data are misclassified. Biometrics 2005; 61(1):287-294.