ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Robustness of the Pairwise-Fitting Approach Under Missing at Random Dropout: A Case and Simulation Study.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In many studies, multiple longitudinal outcomes are collected, and interest lies in studying the association between these outcomes. Joint modeling is then required, but full likelihood estimation becomes infeasible as the number of outcomes increases. To address this, the pairwise-fitting approach was developed. However, the robustness of this pseudo-likelihood-based approach under missing at random (MAR) remains unclear. We investigate the impact of MAR dropout on the pairwise-fitting approach through a case and simulation study and compare the results to full likelihood estimation. In the simulation study, we simulate three continuous longitudinal outcomes so that full likelihood estimation remains computationally feasible, allowing a comparison with the pairwise fitting approach. Various settings are examined, including random intercept and random intercept-and-slope models, in which we vary the standard deviation of the error terms and the degree of correlation between random effects. Our results show that bias remains limited in random intercept models and in most random intercept-and-slope models. However, when the standard deviation of the error terms becomes large compared to that of the random effects, some bias appears in the covariances between the random effects of the outcomes not driving dropout. This bias is mitigated using multiple imputation. As a case study, we analyzed data from a schizophrenia study using both full likelihood and pseudo-likelihood approaches and compared the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.