Accounting for bias due to outcome data missing not at random: comparison and illustration of two approaches to probabilistic bias analysis: a simulation study
Emily Kawabata, Daniel Major-Smith, Gemma L Clayton, View ORCID ProfileChin Yang Shapland, Tim P Morris, View ORCID ProfileAlice R Carter, Alba Fernández-Sanlés, Maria Carolina Borges, Kate Tilling, Gareth J Griffith, Louise AC Millard, George Davey Smith, Deborah A Lawlor, Rachael A Hughes
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.24.24304792
Emily Kawabata
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Daniel Major-Smith
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Gemma L Clayton
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Chin Yang Shapland
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Tim P Morris
3MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
Alice R Carter
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Alba Fernández-Sanlés
4MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at University College London, London, UK
Maria Carolina Borges
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Kate Tilling
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Gareth J Griffith
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Louise AC Millard
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
George Davey Smith
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Deborah A Lawlor
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Rachael A Hughes
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Data Availability
The software code to generate the simulated datasets analysed during the simulated study are available in the COVIDITY_ProbQBA repository, https://github.com/MRCIEU/COVIDITY_ProbQBA. The UK Biobank study dataset analysed during the current study is available from the UK Biobank Access Management Team (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/learn-more-about-uk-biobank/contact-us) but restrictions may apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. All methods discussed in this paper can be implemented using the provided software code available from the COVIDITY_ProbQBA repository, https://github.com/MRCIEU/COVIDITY_ProbQBA.
Posted March 26, 2024.
Accounting for bias due to outcome data missing not at random: comparison and illustration of two approaches to probabilistic bias analysis: a simulation study
Emily Kawabata, Daniel Major-Smith, Gemma L Clayton, Chin Yang Shapland, Tim P Morris, Alice R Carter, Alba Fernández-Sanlés, Maria Carolina Borges, Kate Tilling, Gareth J Griffith, Louise AC Millard, George Davey Smith, Deborah A Lawlor, Rachael A Hughes
medRxiv 2024.03.24.24304792; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.24.24304792
Accounting for bias due to outcome data missing not at random: comparison and illustration of two approaches to probabilistic bias analysis: a simulation study
Emily Kawabata, Daniel Major-Smith, Gemma L Clayton, Chin Yang Shapland, Tim P Morris, Alice R Carter, Alba Fernández-Sanlés, Maria Carolina Borges, Kate Tilling, Gareth J Griffith, Louise AC Millard, George Davey Smith, Deborah A Lawlor, Rachael A Hughes
medRxiv 2024.03.24.24304792; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.24.24304792
Subject Area
Subject Areas
- Addiction Medicine (349)
- Allergy and Immunology (668)
- Allergy and Immunology (668)
- Anesthesia (181)
- Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
- Dermatology (223)
- Emergency Medicine (399)
- Epidemiology (12228)
- Forensic Medicine (10)
- Gastroenterology (759)
- Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
- Geriatric Medicine (387)
- Health Economics (680)
- Health Informatics (2657)
- Health Policy (1005)
- Hematology (363)
- HIV/AIDS (851)
- Medical Education (399)
- Medical Ethics (109)
- Nephrology (436)
- Neurology (3882)
- Nursing (209)
- Nutrition (577)
- Oncology (2030)
- Ophthalmology (585)
- Orthopedics (240)
- Otolaryngology (306)
- Pain Medicine (250)
- Palliative Medicine (75)
- Pathology (473)
- Pediatrics (1115)
- Primary Care Research (452)
- Public and Global Health (6527)
- Radiology and Imaging (1403)
- Respiratory Medicine (871)
- Rheumatology (409)
- Sports Medicine (342)
- Surgery (448)
- Toxicology (53)
- Transplantation (185)
- Urology (165)