Comparing incomplete paired binomial data under non-random mechanisms.

In many paired experiments designed to compare two treatments, various mechanisms can lead to the data being incomplete. Such mechanisms may be of a non-random nature and may depend on the treatment or the outcome. This paper considers several methods for testing the equality of two correlated binomial proportions when the incompleteness is caused by non-random mechanisms. Several simple procedures are justified in certain cases. The tests based on all available data are more efficient compared to those utilizing only portions of the data. McNemar's test based only on the complete paired observations and the likelihood test are the most robust, although no efficient test exists when the mechanisms are not independent.

[1]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  R. R. Hocking,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Incomplete Multinomial Data , 1971 .

[3]  G G Koch,et al.  Linear model analysis of categorical data with incomplete response vectors. , 1972, Biometrics.

[4]  R. R. Hocking,et al.  The analysis of partially categorized contingency data. , 1974, Biometrics.

[5]  Q. Mcnemar.  Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages , 1947, Psychometrika.

[6]  S. C. Choi,et al.  Practical Tests for Comparing Two Proportions with Incomplete Data , 1982 .

[7]  D. Stablein,et al.  Statistical methods for determining prognosis in severe head injury. , 1980, Neurosurgery.

[8]  D. Titterington,et al.  Comparison of Discrimination Techniques Applied to a Complex Data Set of Head Injured Patients , 1981 .

[9]  J. Miller,et al.  The outcome from severe head injury with early diagnosis and intensive management. , 1977, Journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  S. Blumenthal.  Multinomial Sampling With Partially Categorized Data , 1968 .

[11]  J. Ward,et al.  Chart for outcome prediction in severe head injury. , 1983, Journal of neurosurgery.

[12]  S. Fienberg,et al.  Two-Dimensional Contingency Tables with Both Completely and Partially Cross-Classified Data , 1974 .

[13]  G G Enas,et al.  Improved confidence of outcome prediction in severe head injury. A comparative analysis of the clinical examination, multimodality evoked potentials, CT scanning, and intracranial pressure. , 1981, Journal of neurosurgery.

[14]  C. Carlsson,et al.  Factors Affecting the Clinical Course of Patients with Severe Head Injuries , 1968 .