Skip to main content

Table 2 MCAR 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 (0.062) 0.946 0.000
MI: wt, hb, age, para 0.237 (0.063) 0.957 -0.013
MI: hb, age, para 0.237 (0.063) 0.957 -0.013
MI: hb, age, para, group 0.249 (0.063) 0.950 -0.001
MI: wt, hb, age, para, group 0.249 (0.062) 0.944 -0.001
15 % of outcomes missing    
CC 0.250 (0.066) 0.946 0.000
MI: wt, hb, age, para 0.211 (0.066) 0.946 -0.039
MI: hb, age, para 0.212 (0.066) 0.944 -0.038
MI: hb, age, para, group 0.249 (0.066) 0.950 -0.001
MI: wt, hb, age, para, group 0.249 (0.066) 0.941 -0.001
30 % of outcomes missing    
CC 0.250 (0.073) 0.946 0.000
MI: wt, hb, age, para 0.173 (0.071) 0.880 -0.077
MI: hb, age, para 0.174 (0.071) 0.891 -0.076
MI: hb, age, para, group 0.247 (0.072) 0.944 -0.003
MI: wt, hb, age, para, group 0.248 (0.072) 0.948 -0.002
Back to article page

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215