首页> 外文期刊>Pharmaceutical statistics. >Comparison of several imputation methods for missing baseline data in propensity scores analysis of binary outcome.
【24h】

Comparison of several imputation methods for missing baseline data in propensity scores analysis of binary outcome.

机译:在二进制结果倾向得分分析中缺少基线数据的几种估算方法的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

We performed a simulation study comparing the statistical properties of the estimated log odds ratio from propensity scores analyses of a binary response variable, in which missing baseline data had been imputed using a simple imputation scheme (Treatment Mean Imputation), compared with three ways of performing multiple imputation (MI) and with a Complete Case analysis. MI that included treatment (treated/untreated) and outcome (for our analyses, outcome was adverse event [yeso]) in the imputer's model had the best statistical properties of the imputation schemes we studied. MI is feasible to use in situations where one has just a few outcomes to analyze. We also found that Treatment Mean Imputation performed quite well and is a reasonable alternative to MI in situations where it is not feasible to use MI. Treatment Mean Imputation performed better than MI methods that did not include both the treatment and outcome in the imputer's model.
机译:我们进行了一项模拟研究,比较了通过二进制响应变量的倾向得分分析估算出的对数比值比的统计属性,其中使用简单的插补方案(治疗均值插补)插补了缺失的基线数据,并与三种执行方式进行了比较多重插补(MI)并带有完整案例分析。包括治疗(治疗/未治疗)和预后(对于我们的分析而言,预后为不良事件[是/否])的心梗在我们研究的插补方案中具有最佳的统计特性。在只有几个结果需要分析的情况下,可以使用MI。我们还发现,在无法使用MI的情况下,平均插补治疗效果很好。治疗均值插补的效果优于MI方法,该方法未同时包括治疗方法和预后模型的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号