Search for: All records

Abstract Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular and well-established method for handling missing data in multivariate data sets, but its practicality for use in massive and complex data sets has been questioned. One such data set is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a longstanding and extensive survey of household income and wealth in the United States. Missing data for this survey are currently handled using traditional hot deck methods because of the simple implementation; however, the univariate hot deck results in large random wealth fluctuations. MI is effective but faced with operational challenges. We use a sequential regression/chained-equation approach, using the software IVEware, to multiply impute cross-sectional wealth data in the 2013 PSID, and compare analyses of the resulting imputed data with those from the current hot deck approach. Practical difficulties, such as non-normally distributed variables, skip patterns, categorical variables with many levels, and multicollinearity, are described together with our approaches to overcoming them. We evaluate the imputation quality and validity with internal diagnostics and external benchmarking data. MI produces improvements over the existing hot deck approach by helping preserve correlation structures, such as the associations between PSID wealth components and the relationships between the household net worth and sociodemographic factors, and facilitates completed data analyses with general purposes. MI incorporates highly predictive covariates into imputation models and increases efficiency. We recommend the practical implementation of MI and expect greater gains when the fraction of missing information is large. 

We consider comparative effectiveness research (CER) from observational data with two or more treatments. In observational studies, the estimation of causal effects is prone to bias due to confounders related to both treatment and outcome. Methods based on propensity scores are routinely used to correct for such confounding biases. A large fraction of propensity score methods in the current literature consider the case of either two treatments or continuous outcome. There has been extensive literature with multiple treatment and binary outcome, but interest often lies in the intersection, for which the literature is still evolving. The contribution of this article is to focus on this intersection and compare across methods, some of which are fairly recent. We describe propensity‐based methods when more than two treatments are being compared, and the outcome is binary. We assess the relative performance of these methods through a set of simulation studies. The methods are applied to assess the effect of four common therapies for castration‐resistant advanced‐stage prostate cancer. The data consist of medical and pharmacy claims from a large national private health insurance network, with the adverse outcome being admission to the emergency room within a short time window of treatment initiation.