Multiple imputation of missing data under missing at random: including a collider as an auxiliary variable in the imputation model can induce bias - Curnow, Elinor; Tilling, Kate; Heron, Jon E; Cornish, Rosie P; Carpenter, James R (medRxiv, 2023)
Epidemiological studies often have missing data, which are commonly handled by multiple imputation (MI). In MI, in addition to those required for the substantive analysis, imputation models often include other variables (“auxiliary variables”). Auxiliary variables that predict the partially observed variables can reduce the standard error (SE) of the MI estimator and, if they also predict the probability that data are missing, reduce bias due to data being missing not at random. However, guidance for choosing auxiliary variables is lacking. We examine the consequences of a poorly-chosen auxiliary variable: if it shares a common cause with the partially observed variable and the probability that it is missing (i.e. it is a “collider”), its inclusion can induce bias in the MI estimator and may increase SE. We quantify, both algebraically and by simulation, the magnitude of bias and SE when either the exposure or outcome are incomplete. When the substantive analysis outcome is partially observed, the bias can be substantial, relative to the magnitude of the exposure coefficient. In settings in which complete records analysis is valid, the bias is smaller when the exposure is partially observed. However, bias can be larger if the outcome also causes missingness in the exposure. When using MI, it is important to examine, through a combination of data exploration and considering plausible casual diagrams and missingness mechanisms, whether potential auxiliary variables are colliders.Contribution to the field statement In multiple imputation (MI), in addition to those required for the substantive analysis, imputation models often include other variables (“auxiliary variables”). Auxiliary variables that predict the partially observed variables can reduce the standard error (SE) of the MI estimator and, if they also predict the probability that data are missing, reduce bias due to data being missing not at random. We examine the consequences of a poorly-chosen auxiliary variable: if it shares a common cause with the partially observed variable and the probability that it is missing (i.e. it is a “collider”), its inclusion can induce bias in the MI estimator and may increase SE. We demonstrate that when the substantive analysis outcome is partially observed, the bias can be substantial, relative to the magnitude of the exposure coefficient. In settings in which complete records analysis is valid, the bias is smaller when the exposure is partially observed. However, bias can be larger if the outcome also causes missingness in the exposure. We recommmend a combination of data exploration and consideration of plausible casual diagrams and missingness mechanisms to examine whether potential auxiliary variables are colliders.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe results reported herein correspond to specific aims of grant MR/V020641/1 to investigators Kate Tilling and James Carpenter from the UK Medical Research Council. Elinor Curnow, Jon Heron, Rosie Cornish, and Kate Tilling work in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol which is supported by the UK Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol MC_UU_00032/02. James Carpenter is also supported by the UK Medical Research Council (grant no MC_UU_00004/04). The UK Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (grant no 217065/Z/19/Z), and the University of Bristol currently provide core funding for the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Data collection is funded from a wide range of sources.s Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Ethics and Law Committee and local research ethics committees. Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Ethics and Law Committee at the time.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesStata code to verify theoretical results, and also to generate and analyse the data as per the simulation studies is included in Supplementary Material, Section S8. Stata code to analyse the real data example is included in Supplementary Material, Section S9. The real data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.