Multiple imputation compared with restricted pseudo‐likelihood and generalized estimating equations for analysis of binary repeated measures in clinical studies

Non‐likelihood‐based methods for repeated measures analysis of binary data in clinical trials can result in biased estimates of treatment effects and associated standard errors when the dropout process is not completely at random. We tested the utility of a multiple imputation approach in reducing these biases. Simulations were used to compare performance of multiple imputation with generalized estimating equations and restricted pseudo‐likelihood in five representative clinical trial profiles for estimating (a) overall treatment effects and (b) treatment differences at the last scheduled visit. In clinical trials with moderate to high (40–60%) dropout rates with dropouts missing at random, multiple imputation led to less biased and more precise estimates of treatment differences for binary outcomes based on underlying continuous scores. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.