Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models.

C H Mallinckrodt1, W S Clark, S R David

  • 1Eli Lilly & Co, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285, USA.

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
|July 19, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of Clinical Meaningfulness of Fortasyn Connect in Terms of "Time Saved".

The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease·2024
Same author

"Time Saved" Calculations to Improve Decision-Making in Progressive Disease Studies.

The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease·2024
Same author

Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice.

Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science·2020
Same author

A structured framework for assessing sensitivity to missing data assumptions in longitudinal clinical trials.

Pharmaceutical statistics·2012
Same author

A structured approach to choosing estimands and estimators in longitudinal clinical trials.

Pharmaceutical statistics·2012
Same author

Trophic transfer efficiency of methylmercury and inorganic mercury to lake trout Salvelinus namaycush from its prey.

Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology·2012
Same journal

Leveraging external controls in clinical trials: estimands, estimation, assumptions.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Comparison of flexible parametric modeling and nonparametric methods to estimate restricted mean survival time: A simulation study.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Simulated treatment comparisons with jackknife pseudo values for estimating population-adjusted marginal treatment effects.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Sample sizes for randomized controlled trials utilizing Bayesian response adaptive randomization for continuous outcomes.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

Handing missing data using multiple imputation in hybrid control clinical trials with modified power prior.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
Same journal

A doubly robust estimator for unanchored indirect treatment comparisons: Development and evaluation using simulated and case-study data.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2026
See all related articles

Likelihood-based repeated measures analyses (MMRM) provide more accurate estimates of treatment effects than last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation when handling missing data due to patient dropout in longitudinal studies.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trials
  • Longitudinal Data Analysis

Background:

  • Evaluating treatment effects often relies on longitudinal data analysis.
  • Subject dropout can introduce bias in these analyses.
  • Missing data imputation methods are crucial for valid interpretation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) against Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) imputation.
  • To assess the ability of these methods to account for dropout bias in longitudinal data.
  • To evaluate accuracy in estimating treatment effects and quantifying uncertainty.

Main Methods:

  • Simulated longitudinal data with ignorable and nonignorable missingness due to dropout.
  • Real data from a randomized clinical trial with introduced dropout.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of MMRM and fixed-effects ANOVA with LOCF imputation.

    • Main Results:

    • MMRM estimates of treatment group differences were consistently closer to true values than LOCF estimates across all simulated scenarios.
    • MMRM's standard errors and confidence intervals accurately reflected estimate uncertainty.
    • LOCF underestimated uncertainty, potentially leading to overconfidence in treatment effect estimates.

    Conclusions:

    • MMRM is a superior method for analyzing longitudinal data with dropouts compared to LOCF.
    • MMRM provides more reliable estimates of treatment effects and appropriate measures of uncertainty.
    • These findings have significant implications for clinical trial data analysis and interpretation.