Abstract
Randomization-based inference is a natural way to analyze data from a clinical trial. But the presence of missing outcome data is problematic: if the data are removed, the randomization distribution is destroyed and randomization tests have no validity. In this article we describe two approaches to imputing values for missing data that preserve the randomization distribution. We then compare these methods to population-based and parametric imputation approaches that are in standard use to compare error rates under both homogeneous and heterogeneous population models. We also describe randomization-based analogs of standard missing data mechanisms and describe a randomization-based procedure to determine if data are missing completely at random. We conclude that randomization-based methods are a reasonable approach to missing data that perform comparably to population-based methods.
Supplementary Materials
S1. Type I error rates and power for different imputation methods using the Biased Coin Design.
S2. Results for heterogeneous responses using the Biased Coin Design
Acknowledgments
We thank two anonymous referees for their insightful comments that improved the article.
Disclosure Statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.