search

menu

  • Research Research
    • Where science meets inspired minds

    • Back
    • Research
    • Our Science
    • Research Groups
    • Facilities & Platforms
    • Clinical research
    • Find a researcher
    • Publications
    • Knowledge Transfer
  • Careers & study Careers & study
    • Become a leader in cancer research

    • Back
    • Careers & study
    • Vacancies
    • Faculty
    • Scientific staff
    • Scientific support staff
    • Postdoctoral fellows
    • PhD Students
    • Operational staff
    • Clinical fellows
    • Life in Amsterdam
    • Student internships
  • News & Events News & Events
    • Check out our stories and events

    • Back
    • News & Events
    • News
    • Media & Press
    • Calendar
  • About us About us
    • Maximum impact for cancer patients

    • Back
    • About us
    • Our vision
    • Organization
    • Collaborations
    • Responsible Research
    • Support us
    • Visit us
    • Contact us
  • Support us
Support us
  • Home
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Article

Performance of methods for handling missing categorical covariate data in population pharmacokinetic analyses.

Ron J Keizer ,
Anthe S Zandvliet ,
Jos H Beijnen ,
Jan H M Schellens ,
Alwin D R Huitema

Abstract

In population pharmacokinetic analyses, missing categorical data are often encountered. We evaluated several methods of performing covariate analyses with partially missing categorical covariate data. Missing data methods consisted of discarding data (DROP), additional effect parameter for the group with missing data (EXTRA), and mixture methods in which the mixing probability was fixed to the observed fraction of categories (MIX(obs)), based on the likelihood of the concentration data (MIX(conc)), or combined likelihood of observed covariate data and concentration data (MIX(joint)). Simulations were implemented to study bias and imprecision of the methods in datasets with equal-sized and unbalanced category ratios for a binary covariate as well as datasets with non-random missingness (MNAR). Additionally, the performance and feasibility of implementation was assessed in two real datasets. At either low (10%) or high (50%) levels of missingness, all methods performed similarly well. Performance was similar for situations with unbalanced datasets (3:1 covariate distribution) and balanced datasets. In the MNAR scenario, the MIX methods showed a higher bias in the estimation of CL and covariate effect than EXTRA. All methods could be applied to real datasets, except DROP. All methods perform similarly at the studied levels of missingness, but the DROP and EXTRA methods provided less bias than the mixture methods in the case of MNAR. However, EXTRA was associated with inflated type I error rates of covariate selection, while DROP handled data inefficiently.

More about this publication

The AAPS journal

Volume 14
Issue nr. 3
Pages 601-11
Publication date 01-09-2012

Full text links

Publisher website (DOI) 10.1208/s12248-012-9373-2
Europe PubMed Central 22648902
Pubmed 22648902

Where science meets inspired minds

Contact

Plesmanlaan 121
1066CX Amsterdam

020 512 9111 communicatie@nki.nl

Quick links

  • Vacancies
  • News
  • Contact us
  • Media & Press

Follow us on

Disclaimer
Privacy statement
Cookies
Change cookie settings

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.