Skip to main content

Table 3 MNAR 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

0.258 (0.063)

0.942

+0.008

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.244 (0.064)

0.962

-0.006

MI: hb, age, para

0.245 (0.064)

0.958

-0.005

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.257 (0.063)

0.946

+0.007

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.256 (0.063)

0.946

+0.006

15 % of outcomes missing

   

CC

0.274 (0.068)

0.932

+0.024

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.231 (0.069)

0.975

-0.019

MI: hb, age, para

0.232 (0.069)

0.975

-0.018

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.272 (0.068)

0.931

+0.028

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.273 (0.068)

0.928

+0.023

30 % of outcomes missing

   

CC

0.298 (0.078)

0.895

+0.048

MI: wt, hb, age, para

0.206 (0.077)

0.974

-0.044

MI: hb, age, para

0.206 (0.077)

0.974

-0.044

MI: hb, age, para, group

0.295 (0.078)

0.901

+0.045

MI: wt, hb, age, para, group

0.296 (0.077)

0.898

+0.046