Skip to main content

Table 1 MAR and efficacy rate 85 % versus 60 % (RD 0.250): estimated efficacy differences, coverage and bias for 5 %, 15 % and 30 % averages of 5000 simulated data sets, 50 imputations

From: Is using multiple imputation better than complete case analysis for estimating a prevalence (risk) difference in randomized controlled trials when binary outcome observations are missing?

Model

RD (RMSE)

Coverage

Bias

All outcomes recorded:

0.250 (0.061)

0.950

0.000

5 % of outcomes missing:

   

CC

0.250 (0.063)

0.946

0.000

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.237 (0.063)

0.958

-0.013

MI: hb, age, para

0.238 (0.063)

0.961

-0.012

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.249 (0.062)

0.949

-0.001

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.248 (0.062)

0.945

-0.002

15 % of outcomes missing

   

CC

0.250 (0.066)

0.945

0.000

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.212 (0.066)

0.944

-0.038

MI: hb, age, para

0.214 (0.066)

0.947

-0.036

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.249 (0.066)

0.948

-0.001

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.247 (0.066)

0.949

0.003

30 % of outcomes missing

   

CC

0.250 (0.073)

0.948

0.000

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.175 (0.071)

0.887

-0.075

MI: hb, age, para

0.174 (0.071)

0.879

-0.076

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.248 (0.072)

0.946

-0.002

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.249 (0.072)

0.946

-0.001