Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Aug;13(8):544-9.
Epub 2011 Aug 1.

Multiple imputation in survival models: applied on breast cancer data

Affiliations

Multiple imputation in survival models: applied on breast cancer data

M R Baneshi et al. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2011 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Missing data is a common problem in cancer research. While simple methods such as completecase (C-C) analysis are commonly employed for handling this problem, several studies have shown that these methods led to biased estimates. We aim to address the methodological issues in development of a prognostic model with missing data.

Methods: Three hundred and ten breast cancer patients were enrolled. At first, patients with missing data on any of four candidate variables were omitted. Secondly, missing data were imputed 10 times. Cox regression model was fitted to the C-C and imputed data. Results were compared in terms of variables retained in the model, discrimination ability, and goodness of fit.

Results: Some variables lost their effect in complete-case analysis, due to loss in power, but reached significance level after imputation of missing data. Discrimination ability and goodness of fit of imputed data sets model was higher than that of complete-case model (C-index 76% versus 72%; Likelihood Ratio Test 51.19 versus 32.44).

Conclusion: Our findings showed inappropriateness of ad hoc complete-case analysis. This approach led to loss in power and imprecise estimates. Application of multiple imputation techniques to avid such problems is recommended.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Missing data; Multiple imputation; Prognostic model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altman DG, Lyman GH. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:289–303. doi: 10.1023/A:1006193704132. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:201–10. - PubMed
    1. Wyatt JC, Altman DG. Prognostic models: clinically useful or simply forgotten. Br Med J 1961 Dec 9. 2:1539–41. - PubMed
    1. Burton A, Altman DG. Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:4–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601907. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Missing data. BMJ. 2007;334:424. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38977.682025.2C. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources