Should regression calibration or multiple imputation be used when calibrating different devices in a longitudinal study?

In longitudinal studies, the devices used to measure exposures can change from visit to visit. Calibration studies, wherein a subset of participants is measured using both devices at follow-up, may be used to assess between-device differences (i.e., errors). Then, statistical methods are needed to adjust for between-device differences and the missing measurement data that often appear in calibration studies. Regression calibration and multiple imputation are two possible methods. We compared both methods in linear regression with a simulation study, considering various real-world scenarios for a longitudinal study of pulse wave velocity. Regression calibration and multiple imputation were both essentially unbiased, but correctly estimating the standard errors posed challenges. Multiple imputation with predicted mean matching produced close agreement with the empirical standard error. Fully stochastic multiple imputation underestimated the standard error by up to 50%, and regression calibration with bootstrapped standard errors performed slightly better than fully stochastic multiple imputation. Regression calibration was slightly more efficient than either multiple imputation method. The results suggest use of multiple imputation with predictive mean matching over fully stochastic imputation or regression calibration in longitudinal studies where a new device at follow-up might be error-prone compared to the device used at baseline.