Complete case logistic regression with a dichotomised continuous outcome led to biased estimates.
ALSPAC
Auxiliary variable
Complete case analysis
Logistic regression
Missing data
Multiple imputation
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
received:
22
06
2022
revised:
27
10
2022
accepted:
29
11
2022
pubmed:
5
12
2022
medline:
22
3
2023
entrez:
4
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate whether a complete case logistic regression gives a biased estimate of the exposure odds ratio (OR) if missingness depends on a continuous outcome, but a binary version is used for analysis; to examine whether any bias could be reduced by including a misclassified form of the incomplete outcome as an auxiliary variable in multiple imputation (MI). Analytical investigation, simulation study, and data from a UK cohort. There was bias in the exposure OR when the probability of being a complete case was independently associated with the exposure and (continuous) outcome but this was generally small unless the association with the outcome was strong. Where exposure and (continuous) outcome interacted in their effect on this probability, the bias was large, particularly at high levels of missing data. Inclusion of the auxiliary variable resulted in important bias reductions when this had high sensitivity and specificity. The robustness of logistic regression to missing data is not maintained when the outcome is a binary version of an underlying continuous measure, but the bias will be small unless the association between the continuous outcome and missingness is strong.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36464232
pii: S0895-4356(22)00309-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.022
pmc: PMC10322727
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33-41Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 217065/Z/19/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19009
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T023953/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_15018
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L012081
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G9815508
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 1;6(12):e013167
pubmed: 27909036
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:63-73
pubmed: 30878639
Psychol Methods. 2001 Dec;6(4):330-51
pubmed: 11778676
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Oct 15;182(8):730-6
pubmed: 26429998
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):111-27
pubmed: 22507743
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 3;7(1):12579
pubmed: 28974730
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2017 Dec 19;14:14
pubmed: 29270206
Psychol Med. 1992 May;22(2):465-86
pubmed: 1615114
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):97-110
pubmed: 22507742
Front Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 07;8:101
pubmed: 28638352
Stat Med. 2019 May 20;38(11):2074-2102
pubmed: 30652356