Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys

Background: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which di...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hamid Heidarian Miri, Jafar Hassanzadeh, Saeedeh Hajebi Khaniki, Rahim Akrami, Ehsan Baradaran Sirjani
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125931649/view
_version_ 1818038460874752000
author Hamid Heidarian Miri
Jafar Hassanzadeh
Saeedeh Hajebi Khaniki
Rahim Akrami
Ehsan Baradaran Sirjani
author_facet Hamid Heidarian Miri
Jafar Hassanzadeh
Saeedeh Hajebi Khaniki
Rahim Akrami
Ehsan Baradaran Sirjani
author_sort Hamid Heidarian Miri
collection DOAJ
description Background: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which differed by rate of simulated missing data, variable transformation, and MI method. In each state, the process of simulation of missing data and then MI were repeated 50 times. Evaluation was based on Relative Bias (RB) as well as five other measurements that were averaged over 50 repetitions. Results: In estimation of mean, Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) and Multiple Imputation by Chained Equation (MICE) could compensate for the nonresponse bias. Ln and Box–Cox (BC) transformation should be applied when the nonresponse rate reaches 40% and 60%, respectively. In estimation of proportion, PMM, MICE, bootstrap expectation maximization algorithm (BEM), and linear regression accompanied by BC transformation could correct for the nonresponse bias. Our findings show that even with 60% of nonresponse rate some of the MI methods could satisfactorily result in estimates with negligible RB. Conclusion: Decision on MI method and variable transformation should be taken with caution. It is not possible to regard one method as totally the worst or the best and each method could outperform the others if it is applied in its right situation. Even in a certain situation, one method could be the best in terms of validity but the other method could be the best in terms of precision.
first_indexed 2024-12-10T07:43:06Z
format Article
id doaj.art-26d5cb758c8246239d33d7fc4ffb1fdc
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2210-6014
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T07:43:06Z
publishDate 2020-01-01
publisher Springer
record_format Article
series Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health
spelling doaj.art-26d5cb758c8246239d33d7fc4ffb1fdc2022-12-22T01:57:15ZengSpringerJournal of Epidemiology and Global Health2210-60142020-01-0110110.2991/jegh.k.191207.001Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS SurveysHamid Heidarian MiriJafar HassanzadehSaeedeh Hajebi KhanikiRahim AkramiEhsan Baradaran SirjaniBackground: This study was aimed to evaluate five Multiple Imputation (MI) methods in the context of STEP-wise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) surveys. Methods: We selected a complete subsample of STEPS survey data set and devised an experimental design consisted of 45 states (3 × 3 × 5), which differed by rate of simulated missing data, variable transformation, and MI method. In each state, the process of simulation of missing data and then MI were repeated 50 times. Evaluation was based on Relative Bias (RB) as well as five other measurements that were averaged over 50 repetitions. Results: In estimation of mean, Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) and Multiple Imputation by Chained Equation (MICE) could compensate for the nonresponse bias. Ln and Box–Cox (BC) transformation should be applied when the nonresponse rate reaches 40% and 60%, respectively. In estimation of proportion, PMM, MICE, bootstrap expectation maximization algorithm (BEM), and linear regression accompanied by BC transformation could correct for the nonresponse bias. Our findings show that even with 60% of nonresponse rate some of the MI methods could satisfactorily result in estimates with negligible RB. Conclusion: Decision on MI method and variable transformation should be taken with caution. It is not possible to regard one method as totally the worst or the best and each method could outperform the others if it is applied in its right situation. Even in a certain situation, one method could be the best in terms of validity but the other method could be the best in terms of precision.https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125931649/viewMultiple imputationnonresponseSTEPS surveys
spellingShingle Hamid Heidarian Miri
Jafar Hassanzadeh
Saeedeh Hajebi Khaniki
Rahim Akrami
Ehsan Baradaran Sirjani
Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health
Multiple imputation
nonresponse
STEPS surveys
title Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
title_full Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
title_fullStr Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
title_short Accuracy of Five Multiple Imputation Methods in Estimating Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes based on STEPS Surveys
title_sort accuracy of five multiple imputation methods in estimating prevalence of type 2 diabetes based on steps surveys
topic Multiple imputation
nonresponse
STEPS surveys
url https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125931649/view
work_keys_str_mv AT hamidheidarianmiri accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys
AT jafarhassanzadeh accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys
AT saeedehhajebikhaniki accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys
AT rahimakrami accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys
AT ehsanbaradaransirjani accuracyoffivemultipleimputationmethodsinestimatingprevalenceoftype2diabetesbasedonstepssurveys