Is there a role for expectation maximization imputation in addressing missing data in research using WOMAC questionnaire? Comparison to the standard mean approach and a tutorial

BackgroundStandard mean imputation for missing values in the Western Ontario and Mc Master (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index limits the use of collected data and may lead to bias. Probability model-based imputation methods overcome such limitations but were never before applied to the WOMAC. In this study, we compare imputation results for the Expectation Maximization method (EM) and the mean imputation method for WOMAC in a cohort of total hip replacement patients.MethodsWOMAC data on a consecutive cohort of 2062 patients scheduled for surgery were analyzed. Rates of missing values in each of the WOMAC items from this large cohort were used to create missing patterns in the subset of patients with complete data. EM and the WOMAC's method of imputation are then applied to fill the missing values. Summary score statistics for both methods are then described through box-plot and contrasted with the complete case (CC) analysis and the true score (TS). This process is repeated using a smaller sample size of 200 randomly drawn patients with higher missing rate (5 times the rates of missing values observed in the 2062 patients capped at 45%).ResultsRate of missing values per item ranged from 2.9% to 14.5% and 1339 patients had complete data. Probability model-based EM imputed a score for all subjects while WOMAC's imputation method did not. Mean subscale scores were very similar for both imputation methods and were similar to the true score; however, the EM method results were more consistent with the TS after simulation. This difference became more pronounced as the number of items in a subscale increased and the sample size decreased.ConclusionsThe EM method provides a better alternative to the WOMAC imputation method. The EM method is more accurate and imputes data to create a complete data set. These features are very valuable for patient-reported outcomes research in which resources are limited and the WOMAC score is used in a multivariate analysis.

[1]  E. Roos,et al.  Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement , 2003, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[2]  S. Toksvig-Larsen,et al.  Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[3]  R. Bryan,et al.  Total knee replacement. , 1981, Instructional course lectures.

[4]  David E. Booth,et al.  Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data , 2000, Technometrics.

[5]  M. Dougados,et al.  Individualising the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) function subscale: incorporating patient priorities for improvement to measure functional impairment in hip or knee osteoarthritis , 2007, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[6]  M. Dougados,et al.  Using patients’ and rheumatologists’ opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[7]  Ting Hsiang Lin,et al.  A comparison of multiple imputation with EM algorithm and MCMC method for quality of life missing data , 2010 .

[8]  N. Bellamy,et al.  The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. , 2005, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[9]  I. Arostegui,et al.  Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. , 2005, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[10]  Khaled J Saleh,et al.  Functional improvement after Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision: New observations on the dimensional nature of outcome , 2007, Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research.

[11]  M. Dougados,et al.  Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[12]  E. Roos,et al.  The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[13]  R. Kaul,et al.  Quality and quantity: mucosal CD4+ T cells and HIV susceptibility. , 2012, Current opinion in HIV and AIDS.

[14]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.