Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Statistics for Industry and Technology ((SIT))

Abstract

This chapter illustrates how two common missing data mechanisms (missing completely at random, and missing at random) influence the Type I familywise error rate of the therapeutic window of a drug using multiple test procedures. A therapeutic window is determined by the minimum dose needed to effectively treat a condition or ailment, and the maximum dose that can be safely administered. The effect of multiple imputation procedures for these missing data mechanisms is also assessed. Simulation results suggest that multiple imputations reduce the familywise error rate of the therapeutic window in the presence of missing data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Little, R. J. A. and Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, Chapman and Hall, London.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Shekelle, P. G., Hardy, M. L., Maglione, M., Morton S. C. (2003). Efficacy and safety of ephedra and ephedrine for weight loss and athletic performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 1537–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tamhane, A. C. and Logan, B. R. (2002). Multiple test procedures for indentifying the minimum effective and maximum safe doses of a drug, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 293–301.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Tamhane, A. C., Hochberg, Y., Dunnett, C. W. (1996). Multiple test procedures for dose finding, Biometrics, 52, 21–37.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Tamhane, A. C., Dunnett, C. W., Green, J. W., Wetherington, J. F. (2001). Multiple test procedures for identifying the maximum safe dose, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 835–843.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Thall, P. F. and Cheng, S. C. (1999). Treatment comparisons based on two dimensional safety and efficacy alternatives in oncology trials, Biometrics, 55, 746–753.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. United States Food and Drug Administration. (2003). Ephedra and Ephedrine for Weight Loss and Atheletic Performance Enhancement: Clinical Efficacy and Side Effects. Report Number 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Birkhäuser Boston

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Indurkhya, A. (2005). Impact of Missing Data and Imputation Methods on Multiple Test Procedures. In: Balakrishnan, N., Nagaraja, H.N., Kannan, N. (eds) Advances in Ranking and Selection, Multiple Comparisons, and Reliability. Statistics for Industry and Technology. Birkhäuser Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-8176-4422-9_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics