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