Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Imputing missing data of function and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis registers: what is the best technique?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Assessing the sensitivity to change of the OMERACT ultrasound structural gout lesions during urate-lowering therapy

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Atlas of the OMERACT Heel Enthesitis MRI Scoring System (HEMRIS)

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Considerations for improving quality of care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and associated comorbidities

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Denis Mongin
  • Kim Lauper
  • Carl Turesson
  • Merete Lund Hetland
  • Eirik Klami Kristianslund
  • Tore K Kvien
  • Maria Jose Santos
  • Karel Pavelka
  • Florenzo Iannone
  • Axel Finckh
  • Delphine Sophie Courvoisier
View graph of relations

Objective: To compare several methods of missing data imputation for function (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and for disease activity (Disease Activity Score-28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods: One thousand RA patients from observational cohort studies with complete data for function and disease activity at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months were selected to conduct a simulation study. Values were deleted at random or following a predicted attrition bias. Three types of imputation were performed: (1) methods imputing forward in time (last observation carried forward; linear forward extrapolation); (2) methods considering data both forward and backward in time (nearest available observation-NAO; linear extrapolation; polynomial extrapolation); and (3) methods using multi-individual models (linear mixed effects cubic regression-LME3; multiple imputation by chained equation-MICE). The performance of each estimation method was assessed using the difference between the mean outcome value, the remission and low disease activity rates after imputation of the missing values and the true value.

Results: When imputing missing baseline values, all methods underestimated equally the true value, but LME3 and MICE correctly estimated remission and low disease activity rates. When imputing missing follow-up values at 6, 12, or 24 months, NAO provided the least biassed estimate of the mean disease activity and corresponding remission rate. These results were not affected by the presence of attrition bias.

Conclusion: When imputing function and disease activity in large registers of active RA patients, researchers can consider the use of a simple method such as NAO for missing follow-up data, and the use of mixed-effects regression or multiple imputation for baseline data.

Original languageEnglish
JournalRMD Open
Volume5
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)e000994
ISSN2056-5933
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Bibliographical note

COPECARE

ID: 58910503