Handling missing data in propensity score estimation in comparative effectiveness evaluations: A systematic review

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 271-279

  Malla, Lucas ^a   Perera Salazar, Rafael ^b   McFadden, Emily ^b   Ogero, Morris ^c   Stepniewska, Kasia ^a,d   English, Mike ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c KEMRI WELLCOME TRUST RESEARCH PROGRAMME   (Kenya)

^d WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness; missing data; propensity score

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPLETE CASE ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MULTIPLE IMPUTATION; PATIENT CODING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 85043989740     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2017-0071     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Ye C, Beyene J, Browne G, Thabane L. Estimating treatment effects in randomized controlled trials with noncompliance: a simulation study. BMJ Open 4(6), e005362 (2014).
2. Kausto J, Solovieva S, Virta LJ, Viikari-Juntura E. Partial sick leave associated with disability pension: propensity score approach in a register-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2(6), e001752 (2012).
3. West SG, Duan N, Pequegnat W et al. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Public Health 98(8), 1359-1366 (2008).
4. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part I. Value Health 12(8), 1044-1052 (2009).
5. Rosenbaum PR, Silber JH. Matching and thick description in an observational study of mortality after surgery. Biostatistics 2(2), 217-232 (2001).
6. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 25(1), 1-21 (2010).
7. Thoemmes FJ, Kim ES. A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behav. Res. 46(1), 90-118 (2011).
8. Zakrison TL, Austin PC, Mccredie VA. A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. doi:10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6 (2017) (Epub ahead of print).
9. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. JSTOR 70, 41-55 (1983).
10. Toh S, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Hernan MA. Analyzing partially missing confounder information in comparative effectiveness and safety research of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 21(Suppl. 2), 13-20 (2012).
11. Lee KJ, Simpson JA. Introduction to multiple imputation for dealing with missing data. Respirol. 19(2), 162-167 (2014).
12. Carpenter JR, Kenward MG, White IR. Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 16(3), 259-275 (2007).
13. Mitra R, Reiter JP. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 25(1), 188-204 (2016).
14. Rubin DB, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in healthcare databases: an overview and some applications. Stat. Med. 10(4), 585-598 (1991).
15. Mayer B, Puschner B. Propensity score adjustment of a treatment effect with missing data in psychiatric health services research. Epidemiol. Biostatistics Public Health 12(1), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2427/10214 (2015) (Epub ahead of print).
16. Nakai M, Ke W. Review of the methods for handling missing data in longitudinal data analysis. Int. J. Math 5(1), 1-13 (2011).
17. Yao XI,Wang X, Speicher PJ et al. Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 109(8), doi:10.1093/jnci/djw323 (2017) (Epub ahead of print).
18. Kang H. The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 64(5), 402-406 (2013).
19. Fielding S, Maclennan G, Cook JA, Ramsay CR. A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes. Trials 9, 51 (2008).
20. Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu CH. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14, 118 (2014).
21. Karahalios A, Baglietto L, Carlin JB, English DR, Simpson JA. A review of the reporting and handling of missing data in cohort studies with repeated assessment of exposure measures. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12, 96 (2012).
22. Eekhout I, De Boer RM, Twisk JW, De Vet HC, Heymans MW. Missing data: a systematic review of how they are reported and handled. Epidemiology 23(5), 729-732 (2012).
23. Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18(6), 805-835 (2007).
24. Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb) 22(3), 276-282 (2012).
25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62(10), 1006-1012 (2009).
26. Molenberghs G, Beunckens C, Sotto C. Every missing not at random model has a missingness at random counterpart with equal fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. 70(2), 371-388 (2008).
27. Molenberghs G, Thijs H, Jansen I et al. Analyzing incomplete longitudinal clinical trial data. Biostatistics 5(3), 445-464 (2004).