Gaps in the usage and reporting of multiple imputation for incomplete data: findings from a scoping review of observational studies addressing causal questions

Abstract

Abstract Background Missing data are common in observational studies and often occur in several of the variables required when estimating a causal effect, i.e. the exposure, outcome and/or variables used to control for confounding. Analyses involving multiple incomplete variables are not as straightforward as analyses with a single incomplete variable. For example, in the context of multivariable missingness, the standard missing data assumptions (“missing completely at random”, “missing at random” [MAR], “missing not at random”) are difficult to interpret and assess. It is not clear how the complexities that arise due to multivariable missingness are being addressed in practice. The aim of this study was to review how missing data are managed and reported in observational studies that use multiple imputation (MI) for causal effect estimation, with a particular focus on missing data summaries, missing data assumptions, primary and sensitivity analyses, and MI implementation. Methods We searched five top general epidemiology journals for observational studies that aimed to answer a causal research question and used MI, published between January 2019 and December 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed systematically. Results Of the 130 studies included in this review, 108 (83%) derived an analysis sample by excluding individuals with missing data in specific variables (e.g., outcome) and 114 (88%) had multivariable missingness within the analysis sample. Forty-four (34%) studies provided a statement about missing data assumptions, 35 of which stated the MAR assumption, but only 11/44 (25%) studies provided a justification for these assumptions. The number of imputations, MI method and MI software were generally well-reported (71%, 75% and 88% of studies, respectively), while aspects of the imputation model specification were not clear for more than half of the studies. A secondary analysis that used a different approach to handle the missing data was conducted in 69/130 (53%) studies. Of these 69 studies, 68 (99%) lacked a clear justification for the secondary analysis. Conclusion Effort is needed to clarify the rationale for and improve the reporting of MI for estimation of causal effects from observational data. We encourage greater transparency in making and reporting analytical decisions related to missing data.