Background and purpose Handling missing values is a prevalent challenge in the analysis of clinical data. The rise of data-driven models demands an efficient use of the available data. Methods to impute missing values are thus crucial. Here, we developed a publicly available framework to test different imputation methods and compared their impact in a typical stroke clinical dataset as a use case. Methods A clinical dataset based on the 1000Plus stroke study with 380 completed-entries patients was used. 13 common clinical parameters including numerical and categorical values were selected. Missing values in a missing-at-random (MAR) and missing-completely-at-random (MCAR) fashion from 0% to 60% were simulated and consequently imputed using the mean, hot-deck, multiple imputation by chained equations, expectation maximization method and listwise deletion. The performance was assessed by the root mean squared error, the absolute bias and the performance of a linear model for discharge mRS prediction. Results Listwise deletion was the worst performing method and started to be significantly worse than any imputation method from 2% (MAR) and 3% (MCAR) missing values on. The underlying missing value mechanism seemed to have a crucial influence on the identified best performing imputation method. Consequently no single imputation method outperformed all others. A significant performance drop of the linear model started from 11% (MAR+MCAR) and 18% (MCAR) missing values. Conclusions In the presented case study of a typical clinical stroke dataset we confirmed that listwise deletion should be avoided for dealing with missing values. Our findings indicate that the underlying missing value mechanism and other dataset characteristics strongly influence the best choice of imputation method. For future studies with similar data structure, we thus suggest to use the developed framework in this study to select the most suitable imputation method for a given dataset prior to analysis.
原文链接
分享
引用
