Unnebrink K, Windeler J
Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 221, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Stat Med. 2001 Dec 30;20(24):3931-46. doi: 10.1002/sim.1149.
Since it came up in the 1960s, the principle of intention-to-treat (ITT) has become widely accepted for the analysis of controlled clinical trials. In this context the question of how to perform such an analysis in the presence of missing information about the main endpoint is of major importance. Uncritical use of several ad hoc strategies for dealing with missing values is common in the practice of clinical trials. On the other hand, little is known about possible dangers and problems of applying these strategies. We therefore performed a detailed investigation of different methods for dealing with missing values in order to develop recommendations for their practical use. A simulation study was performed investigating possible consequences on type I error and power of applying different methods for dealing with missing values. The simulations were based on a clinical trial of osteoporosis, a progressively deteriorating disease. The strategies examined can be roughly classified into numerical imputation strategies (last observation carried forward, mean and regression based methods) and non-parametric strategies (rank and dichotomization based methods). Different drop-out mechanisms and different types of progression of disease are considered. The type I error increases drastically for the different strategies, especially if the courses of disease vary between treatment groups. The loss in power can be substantial. There is no strategy which is adequate for all different combinations of drop-out mechanisms, drop-out rates and courses of disease over time. For drop-out rates less than 20 per cent and similar courses of disease in the treatment groups, missing values might be replaced by the mean of the other group, or counted as treatment failures after dichotomization of the endpoint. For larger drop-out rates or less similar courses of disease, no adequate recommendations can be given. Because of the drastic consequences of increasing drop-out rates, it has to be a primary goal in clinical trials to keep missing values to a minimum. Unobserved information cannot be reliably regained by any methodological resources. As there are no strategies for universal use, reasons for the choice of a certain method have to be provided when designing and analysing clinical trials.
自20世纪60年代提出以来,意向性分析(ITT)原则已被广泛应用于对照临床试验的分析。在这种情况下,如何在主要终点存在缺失信息的情况下进行此类分析的问题至关重要。在临床试验实践中,不加批判地使用几种处理缺失值的临时策略很常见。另一方面,对于应用这些策略可能存在的危险和问题知之甚少。因此,我们对处理缺失值的不同方法进行了详细研究,以便为其实际应用提出建议。进行了一项模拟研究,调查应用不同方法处理缺失值对I型错误和检验效能的可能影响。模拟基于一项骨质疏松症的临床试验,骨质疏松症是一种逐渐恶化的疾病。所研究的策略大致可分为数值插补策略(末次观察结转、基于均值和回归的方法)和非参数策略(基于秩和二分法的方法)。考虑了不同的失访机制和不同类型的疾病进展。不同策略的I型错误会大幅增加,尤其是当治疗组之间的疾病进程不同时。检验效能的损失可能很大。没有一种策略适用于失访机制、失访率和疾病随时间进程的所有不同组合。对于失访率低于20%且治疗组中疾病进程相似的情况,缺失值可以用另一组的均值代替,或者在终点二分后计为治疗失败。对于更高的失访率或不太相似的疾病进程,无法给出适当的建议。由于失访率增加的严重后果,在临床试验中将缺失值降至最低必须是首要目标。任何方法资源都无法可靠地恢复未观察到的信息。由于没有通用的策略,在设计和分析临床试验时必须提供选择某种方法的理由。