Addressing missing data in randomized clinical trials: A causal inference perspective

• Published in: PloS one 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0234349-e0234349
• Main Authors: Cornelisz, Ilja, Cuijpers, Pim, Donker, Tara, van Klaveren, Chris
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Bias; Causal inference; Clinical psychology; Clinical trials; Cognition & reasoning; Computer and Information Sciences; Data Collection - methods; Data Collection - statistics & numerical data; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Developmental psychology; Engineering and Technology; Estimates; Humans; Inference; Intervals; Longitudinal Studies; Management; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Missing data; Missing observations (Statistics); Physical Sciences; Public health; Randomization; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods; Research and Analysis Methods; Studies
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234349

The importance of randomization in clinical trials has long been acknowledged for avoiding selection bias. Yet, bias concerns re-emerge with selective attrition. This study takes a causal inference perspective in addressing distinct scenarios of missing outcome data (MCAR, MAR and MNAR). This study adopts a causal inference perspective in providing an overview of empirical strategies to estimate the average treatment effect, improve precision of the estimator, and to test whether the underlying identifying assumptions hold. We propose to use Random Forest Lee Bounds (RFLB) to address selective attrition and to obtain more precise average treatment effect intervals. When assuming MCAR or MAR, the often untenable identifying assumptions with respect to causal inference can hardly be verified empirically. Instead, missing outcome data in clinical trials should be considered as potentially non-random unobserved events (i.e. MNAR). Using simulated attrition data, we show how average treatment effect intervals can be tightened considerably using RFLB, by exploiting both continuous and discrete attrition predictor variables. Bounding approaches should be used to acknowledge selective attrition in randomized clinical trials in acknowledging the resulting uncertainty with respect to causal inference. As such, Random Forest Lee Bounds estimates are more informative than point estimates obtained assuming MCAR or MAR.