Multiple imputation using auxiliary imputation variables that only predict missingness can increase bias due to data missing not at random

• Published in: BMC medical research methodology 2024-10, Vol.24 (1), p.231-15, Article 231
• Main Authors: Curnow, Elinor, Cornish, Rosie P, Heron, Jon E, Carpenter, James R, Tilling, Kate
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; ALSPAC; Analysis; Auxiliary variable; Bias; Bias amplification; Computer Simulation; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Data mining; Evaluation; Humans; Logistic Models; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Missing data; Models, Statistical; Multiple imputation; Multiple imputation (Statistics); Research Design - statistics & numerical data; Variables (Mathematics)
• ISSN: 1471-2288; 1471-2288
• DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02353-9

Epidemiological and clinical studies often have missing data, frequently analysed using multiple imputation (MI). In general, MI estimates will be biased if data are missing not at random (MNAR). Bias due to data MNAR can be reduced by including other variables ("auxiliary variables") in imputation models, in addition to those required for the substantive analysis. Common advice is to take an inclusive approach to auxiliary variable selection (i.e. include all variables thought to be predictive of missingness and/or the missing values). There are no clear guidelines about the impact of this strategy when data may be MNAR. We explore the impact of including an auxiliary variable predictive of missingness but, in truth, unrelated to the partially observed variable, when data are MNAR. We quantify, algebraically and by simulation, the magnitude of the additional bias of the MI estimator for the exposure coefficient (fitting either a linear or logistic regression model), when the (continuous or binary) partially observed variable is either the analysis outcome or the exposure. Here, "additional bias" refers to the difference in magnitude of the MI estimator when the imputation model includes (i) the auxiliary variable and the other analysis model variables; (ii) just the other analysis model variables, noting that both will be biased due to data MNAR. We illustrate the extent of this additional bias by re-analysing data from a birth cohort study. The additional bias can be relatively large when the outcome is partially observed and missingness is caused by the outcome itself, and even larger if missingness is caused by both the outcome and the exposure (when either the outcome or exposure is partially observed). When using MI, the naïve and commonly used strategy of including all available auxiliary variables should be avoided. We recommend including the variables most predictive of the partially observed variable as auxiliary variables, where these can be identified through consideration of the plausible casual diagrams and missingness mechanisms, as well as data exploration (noting that associations with the partially observed variable in the complete records may be distorted due to selection bias).