Skip Navigation


Nicotine & Tobacco Research Advance Access originally published online on January 27, 2009
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009 11(1):77-83; doi:10.1093/ntr/ntn013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Article Summary
Right arrow Article Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/1/77    most recent
ntn013v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by An, L. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by An, L. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

Why assigning ongoing tobacco use is not necessarily a conservative approach to handling missing tobacco cessation outcomes

David B. Nelson, Melissa R. Partin, Steven S. Fu, Anne M. Joseph and Lawrence C. An

David B. Nelson, Ph.D., Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, and Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Melissa R. Partin, Ph.D., Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, and Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Steven S. Fu, M.D., MSCE, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, and Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Anne M. Joseph, M.D., Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Lawrence C. An, M.D., Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Corresponding Author: David B. Nelson, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (152/2E), VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. Telephone: 612- 467-3490. Fax: 612-727-5699. E-mail: dave.nelson{at}med.va.gov


  Abstract

Introduction: Missing abstinence outcomes are a universal challenge for tobacco cessation studies. The biases inherent in the complete case analysis, where cases missing outcomes are omitted, are well known. Sophisticated statistical methodologies are available to address these biases but are not widely applied in tobacco cessation trials. Within tobacco cessation research, a widely used strategy is penalized imputation (PI), wherein cases missing cessation outcomes are assigned a "currently using tobacco" status.

Statistical basis for the assumed conservativeness of PI: Better statistical methods for addressing missing cessation outcomes may not be widely adopted within the tobacco cessation research community because of the perceived conservativeness of this easily implemented PI approach. When rates of missing outcomes are the same among the different intervention groups, this approach does tend to be more conservative than the complete case analysis. However, this result is highly sensitive to the equivalence of the rates of missing outcomes.

Nonconservativeness of PI in application: PI is routinely criticized because of somewhat arbitrary performance and an overall lack of conservativeness in practice. Here, we present elementary statistical arguments demonstrating that, in commonly encountered situations, PI is as likely to lead to liberal estimates as to conservative estimates relative to the complete case analysis.

Discussion: PI does not necessarily lead to more conservative or less biased effect estimates. Better statistical methods for addressing missing data need to be adopted within the tobacco cessation research community.

Received: January 24, 2008; Accepted: June 9, 2008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.