title: Comparisons of methods for analysis of repeated binary responses with missing data.
abstract: It is important yet challenging to choose an appropriate analysis method for the analysis of repeated binary responses with missing data. The conventional method using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach can be biased in both parameter estimates and hypothesis tests. The generalized estimating equations (GEE) method is valid only when missing data are missing completely at random, which may not be satisfied in many clinical trials. Several random-effects models based on likelihood or pseudo-likelihood methods and multiple-imputation-based methods have been proposed in the literature. In this paper, we evaluate the random-effects models with full- or pseudo-likelihood methods, GEE, and several multiple-imputation approaches. Simulations are used to compare the results and performance among these methods under different simulation settings.
authors: Late Development Statistics, Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, Pennsylvania, USA. guanghan_frank_liu@merck.com
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Frank Liu
authors: Xiaojiang
authors: X
authors: Zhan
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D005246:Feedback; D006801:Humans; D057194:Intention to Treat Analysis; D016015:Logistic Models; D015233:Models, Statistical; D010352:Patient Dropouts / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011336:Probability; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012107:Research Design / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D016896:Treatment Outcome