Imputing longitudinal PROM data at the item and score level in clinical trials.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Carlo A G Veltri, Ulrike Grittner, Pimrapat Gebert
{"title":"Imputing longitudinal PROM data at the item and score level in clinical trials.","authors":"Carlo A G Veltri, Ulrike Grittner, Pimrapat Gebert","doi":"10.1186/s12874-026-02984-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Missing data in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can affect estimation accuracy and inferential validity, particularly under missing-at-random (MAR) mechanisms. Multiple imputation (MI) is commonly recommended, but the relative performance of item-level and score-level imputation for longitudinal PROM composite scores remains insufficiently understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a simulation study based on longitudinal clinical trial PROM data. Predictive mean matching (PMM) and random forest (RF) imputation were evaluated at both the item and score level under empirically calibrated MAR mechanisms. Simulation scenarios varied sample size, overall missingness, and the proportion of unit nonresponse. Performance was assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE), bias magnitude, relative efficiency compared with complete case analysis (CCA), conditional confidence interval coverage, and variance ratio estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RMSE decreased with increasing sample size and increased with higher proportions of missingness across all methods. Both PMM and RF generally outperformed CCA in terms of RMSE and relative efficiency, particularly under higher missingness. Differences between item-level and score-level imputation were generally modest, although score-level imputation tended to yield slightly lower RMSE and bias magnitudes under more severe missingness conditions. Conditional coverage remained close to nominal levels across most MI settings. Variance tended to be overestimated in some scenarios, although sensitivity analyses with larger numbers of imputations substantially reduced this effect. PMM showed comparatively stable performance across simulation settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple imputation methods generally outperformed complete case analysis for handling longitudinal PROM data under MAR. While score-level imputation sometimes showed slightly more favorable performance than item-level imputation when targeting composite score means, the magnitude of these differences was frequently small in practical terms. PMM provided stable performance across a wide range of settings and represents a reasonable default approach for many applied PROM analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13621587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02984-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Missing data in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can affect estimation accuracy and inferential validity, particularly under missing-at-random (MAR) mechanisms. Multiple imputation (MI) is commonly recommended, but the relative performance of item-level and score-level imputation for longitudinal PROM composite scores remains insufficiently understood.

Methods: We conducted a simulation study based on longitudinal clinical trial PROM data. Predictive mean matching (PMM) and random forest (RF) imputation were evaluated at both the item and score level under empirically calibrated MAR mechanisms. Simulation scenarios varied sample size, overall missingness, and the proportion of unit nonresponse. Performance was assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE), bias magnitude, relative efficiency compared with complete case analysis (CCA), conditional confidence interval coverage, and variance ratio estimates.

Results: RMSE decreased with increasing sample size and increased with higher proportions of missingness across all methods. Both PMM and RF generally outperformed CCA in terms of RMSE and relative efficiency, particularly under higher missingness. Differences between item-level and score-level imputation were generally modest, although score-level imputation tended to yield slightly lower RMSE and bias magnitudes under more severe missingness conditions. Conditional coverage remained close to nominal levels across most MI settings. Variance tended to be overestimated in some scenarios, although sensitivity analyses with larger numbers of imputations substantially reduced this effect. PMM showed comparatively stable performance across simulation settings.

Conclusions: Multiple imputation methods generally outperformed complete case analysis for handling longitudinal PROM data under MAR. While score-level imputation sometimes showed slightly more favorable performance than item-level imputation when targeting composite score means, the magnitude of these differences was frequently small in practical terms. PMM provided stable performance across a wide range of settings and represents a reasonable default approach for many applied PROM analyses.

在临床试验项目和评分水平上的纵向PROM数据的输入。
背景:患者报告结果测量(PROMs)的数据缺失会影响估计的准确性和推断的有效性,特别是在随机缺失(MAR)机制下。多重输入(MI)通常被推荐,但项目水平和分数水平的相对性能的纵向PROM复合分数仍然不够清楚。方法:基于纵向临床试验PROM数据进行模拟研究。在经验校准的MAR机制下,在项目和得分水平上对预测平均匹配(PMM)和随机森林(RF) imputation进行了评估。模拟场景变化了样本量、总体缺失和单位无响应的比例。使用均方根误差(RMSE)、偏倚幅度、与完整案例分析(CCA)相比的相对效率、条件置信区间覆盖率和方差比估计来评估绩效。结果:RMSE随样本量的增加而降低,随所有方法中缺失比例的增加而增加。在RMSE和相对效率方面,PMM和RF通常优于CCA,特别是在高缺失情况下。项目水平和分数水平的imputation之间的差异一般不大,尽管分数水平的imputation倾向于在更严重的缺失条件下产生略低的RMSE和偏倚值。在大多数MI设置中,有条件覆盖率仍接近名义水平。在某些情况下,方差往往被高估,尽管使用大量估算的敏感性分析大大减少了这种影响。PMM在模拟设置中表现出相对稳定的性能。结论:对于mar下纵向PROM数据的处理,多重归算方法总体上优于完整病例分析。虽然在针对综合得分均值的情况下,分数水平归算有时比项目水平归算表现稍好,但在实际应用中,这些差异的幅度往往很小。PMM在广泛的设置范围内提供了稳定的性能,并且为许多应用的PROM分析提供了合理的默认方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书