Skip to main content

Table 3 Reporting of methods for MI under MAR

From: A review of the use of controlled multiple imputation in randomised controlled trials with missing outcome data

 

n

(N = 110)

%

Type of primary outcome

 Binary

52

47%

 Continuous

52

47%

 Count

4

4%

 Time-to-event

2

1%

Method of MI

 Not stated

47

43%

 Multiple Imputation using Chained Equations (MICE/FCS)

35

32%

  Specified Imputation Model Type(s) within MICE/FCS

12

11%

MCMC MI/algorithm/method

8

7%

 Regression based MI

7

6%

  Specified imputation Model Type within regression based MI

4

4%

PMM

5

5%

MVN imputation

4

4%

MVN imputation (non-monotone missing patterns) and regression MI model (monotone patterns)

1

1%

MICE (non-monotone missing patterns) and regression MI model (monotone patterns)

1

1%

MCMC (non-monotone missing patterns) and PMM (monotone patterns)

1

1%

Propensity score MI

1

1%

Specified variables in imputation model

52

47%

 Imputation model incl. All variables in analysis model only

6

5%

 Imputation model incl. All variables in analysis model + auxiliary variables

37

34%

 Imputation model did not include all variables in analysis modela

9

8%

Did not specify variables in imputation model

58

53%

Imputation model incl. All variables in analysis model + auxiliary variables

8

7%

Reported the number of multiple imputations

70

64%

No. of imputations

 5

9

8%

 10

8

7%

 11–20

25

23%

 21–50

17

15%

 100

8

7%

 200

1

1%

 1000

2

2%

 Not stated

40

36%

Specific procedure/command(s) (software) for implementing MI

26

24%

 IVEware software

1

1%

 MICE (R)

3

3%

 Proc MI (SAS)

3

3%

 Proc MI and Proc MIANALYZE (SAS)

5

5%

 Proc MIANALYZE (SAS)

2

2%

 Realcom Impute

1

1%

 Ice (Stata)

2

2%

 MICE (Stata)

1

1%

 Mi impute (Stata)

5

%

 MI impute and mi estimate (Stata)

1

1%

 Missing data module in SPSS 24b

2

2%

 Not stated

84

76%

Rubin’s rules used for inference

 Yesc

25

23%

 Nod

1

1%

 Not stated

84

76%

Analysis status

 Primary

2

13%

 Sensitivity

14

87%

Performed diagnostic check of imputations

1

1%

  1. a9 trials did not include all variables in the analysis model in the imputation model and included auxiliary variables. bOne trial specified that the Multiple Imputation-Automatic method was used. c Explicitly stated (n = 18) or inferable from specified software or reference (n = 7). dOne trial reported presented the overall 95% confidence using the mean of the values for the lower and upper confidence intervals. Percentages are rounded to 0 decimal places so may not sum exactly to 100%