Analyzing Longitudinal Health-Related Quality of Life Data: Missing Data and Imputation Methods

  • Dennis A. Revicki


Health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes are frequently incorporated into clinical trials of new medical treatments. Problems associated with missing data, multiplicity of outcomes, and longitudinal data structure complicate the statistical analysis of HRQL data. Various simple and complex imputation techniques and statistical methods have been evaluated to deal with missing at random or missing not at random HRQL data. I used simulations to examine how well four relatively simple imputation methods reproduce known population statistics. The findings suggest that all the imputation methods provide acceptable estimates of the missing HRQL data when less than 10% of the data is missing. The empirical Bayes method was best at reproducing population characteristics, even when missing data rates exceeded 25%. The remaining imputation approaches began to introduce bias into the imputed estimates when missing data rates exceeded 20% across treatment groups. Future research should compare empirical Bayes or multiple imputation with statistical analysis approaches to handling missing HRQL outcome data.


Imputation Method Last Observation Carry Forward Root Mean Square Residual HRQL Score HRQL Outcome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bernhard, J., Cella, D.F., Coates, A.S., Fallowfield, L., Ganz, P.A., Moinpour, C.M., Mosconi, P., Osoba, D., Simes, J. and Hurny, C. (1998). Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges. Statistics in Medicine 17, 517–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curran, D., Molenberghs, G., Fayers, P.M. and Machin, D. (1998). Incomplete quality of life data in randomized trials: missing forms. Statistics in Medicine 17, 697–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Little, R.J.A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 1112–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fairclough, D.L., Peterson, H.F., Cella, D. and Bonomi, P. (1998). Comparison of several model-based methods for analyzing incomplete quality of life data in cancer clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 17, 781–796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diehr, P., Patrick, D.L., Hedrick, S., Rothman, M., Grembowski, D., Raghunathan, T.E. and Beresford, S. (1995). Including deaths when measuring health status over time. Medical Care 33 (suppl), AS 164–172.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubin, D.B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lavori, P.W., Dawson, R. and Shera, D. (1995). A multiple imputation strategy for clinical trials with truncation of patient data. Statistics in Medicine 14, 1913–1925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fairclough, D. Multiple imputation for non-random missing data in longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. International Workshop on Statistical design, measurements and Analysis of Health Related Quality of Life, University of South Brittany, Arradon, France, October 16–17, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fayers, P.M. and Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molenberghs, G. Sensitivity analysis of longitudinal quality of life data. International Workshop on Statistical design, measurements and Analysis of Health Related Quality of Life, University of South Brittany, Arradon, France, October 16–17, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fairclough, D.L. (1998). Methods of analysis of longitudinal studies of health-related quality of life. In: Staquet, M.J., Hays, R.D. and Fayers, P.M. (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Revicki, D.A., Gold, K., Buckman, D., Chan, K., Kallich, J.D. and Woolley, M. (2001) Imputing physical function scores missing owing to mortality: results of a simulation comparing multiple techniques. Medical Care 39, 61–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Besarab, A., Bilton, W.K., Browne, J.K., Egrie, J.C., Nissenson, A.R., Okamoto, D.M., Schwab, S.J. and Goodkin, D.A. (1998). The effects of normal as compared with low hematocrit values in patients with cardiac disease who are receiving hemodialysis and epoetin. New England Journal of Medicine 339, 584–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware, J.E., Snow, K.K., Kosinski, M. and Gandek, B. (1993) SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mori, M., Woodworth, G.G. and Woolson, R.F. (1992) Application of empirical Bayes inference to estimation of rate of change in the presence of informative right censoring. Statistics in Medicine 11, 621–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    SAS Institute (1996). SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Release 6.03. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zar, J.H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, M.C. and Bailey, K.R. (1989) Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informative right censoring: conditional linear model. Biometrics 45, 939–955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Revicki, D.A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N.K. and Rothman, M. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research 9, 887–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Health Outcomes ResearchMEDTAP InternationalUSA

Personalised recommendations