Paper detail

Sensitivity analysis in longitudinal clinical trials via distributional imputation

Missing data is inevitable in longitudinal clinical trials. Conventionally, the missing at random assumption is assumed to handle missingness, which however is unverifiable empirically. Thus, sensitivity analysis is critically important to assess the robustness of the study conclusions against untestable assumptions. Toward this end, regulatory agencies often request using imputation models such as return-to-baseline, control-based, and washout imputation. Multiple imputation is popular in sensitivity analysis; however, it may be inefficient and result in an unsatisfying interval estimation by Rubin's combining rule. We propose distributional imputation (DI) in sensitivity analysis, which imputes each missing value by samples from its target imputation model given the observed data. Drawn on the idea of Monte Carlo integration, the DI estimator solves the mean estimating equations of the imputed dataset. It is fully efficient with theoretical guarantees. Moreover, we propose weighted bootstrap to obtain a consistent variance estimator, taking into account the variabilities due to model parameter estimation and target parameter estimation. The finite-sample performance of DI inference is assessed in the simulation study. We apply the proposed framework to an antidepressant longitudinal clinical trial involving missing data to investigate the robustness of the treatment effect. Our proposed DI approach detects a statistically significant treatment effect in both the primary analysis and sensitivity analysis under certain prespecified sensitivity models in terms of the average treatment effect, the risk difference, and the quantile treatment effect in lower quantiles of the responses, uncovering the benefit of the test drug for curing depression.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.