Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098576›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: Use and interpretation of the trimmed means estimator.

Audinga-Dea Hazewinkel, Jack Bowden, Kaitlin H Wade, Tom Palmer, Nicola J Wiles, Kate Tilling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Audinga-Dea HazewinkelPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6923-4388
Jack BowdenMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2628-3304
Kaitlin H WadePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Tom PalmerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4655-4511
Nicola J WilesCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kate TillingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 06/404/02Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/3Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204813/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcome values in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be missing not at random (MNAR), if patients with extreme outcome values are more likely to drop out (eg, due to perceived ineffectiveness of treatment, or adverse effects). In such scenarios, estimates from complete case analysis (CCA) and multiple imputation (MI) will be biased. We investigate the use of the trimmed means (TM) estimator for the case of univariable missingness in one continuous outcome. The TM estimator operates by setting missing values to the most extreme value, and then "trimming" away equal fractions of both groups, estimating the treatment effect using the remaining data. The TM estimator relies on two assumptions, which we term the "strong MNAR" and "location shift" assumptions. We derive formulae for the TM estimator bias resulting from the violation of these assumptions for normally distributed outcomes. We propose an adjusted TM estimator, which relaxes the location shift assumption and detail how our bias formulae can be used to establish the direction of bias of CCA and TM estimates, to inform sensitivity analyses. The TM approach is illustrated in a sensitivity analysis of the CoBalT RCT of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in 469 individuals with 46 months follow-up. Results were consistent with a beneficial CBT treatment effect, with MI estimates closer to the null and TM estimates further from the null than the CCA estimate. We propose using the TM estimator as a sensitivity analysis for data where extreme outcome value dropout is plausible.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient DropoutsBiasHumansbias quantificationdropoutmissing not at randomrandomized controlled trialssensitivity analysestrimmed means

Identifiers

PMID35098576
PMCPMC9303448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.