Propensity Score Analysis with Partially Observed Baseline Covariates: A Practical Comparison of Methods for Handling Missing Data

• Main Authors: Daniele Bottigliengo, Giulia Lorenzoni, Honoria Ocagli, Matteo Martinato, Paola Berchialla, Dario Gregori
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-06-01
• Series: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Subjects: propensity score; missing data; non-interventional studies
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6694
• ISSN: 1661-7827; 1660-4601

(1) Background: Propensity score methods gained popularity in non-interventional clinical studies. As it may often occur in observational datasets, some values in baseline covariates are missing for some patients. The present study aims to compare the performances of popular statistical methods to deal with missing data in propensity score analysis. (2) Methods: Methods that account for missing data during the estimation process and methods based on the imputation of missing values, such as multiple imputations, were considered. The methods were applied on the dataset of an ongoing prospective registry for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. The performances were assessed in terms of the overall balance of baseline covariates. (3) Results: Methods that explicitly deal with missing data were superior to classical complete case analysis. The best balance was observed when propensity scores were estimated with a method that accounts for missing data using a stochastic approximation of the expectation-maximization algorithm. (4) Conclusions: If missing at random mechanism is plausible, methods that use missing data to estimate propensity score or impute them should be preferred. Sensitivity analyses are encouraged to evaluate the implications methods used to handle missing data and estimate propensity score.