Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple Imputation: A Flexible Tool for Handling Missing Data

Open access
Li, Peng, Stuart, Elizabeth A., Allison, David B.·2015·JAMA

Abstract

In this issue of JAMA, Asch et al1 report results of a cluster-randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate the effects of physician financial incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician and patient incentives on low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels among patients with high cardiovascular risk. Because 1 or more follow-up LDL-C measurements were missing for approximately 7% of participants, Asch et al used multiple imputation (MI) to analyze their data and concluded that shared financial incentives for physicians and patients, but not incentives to physicians or patients alone, resulted in the patients having lower LDL-C levels. Imputation is the process of replacing missing data with 1 or more specific values, to allow statistical analysis that includes all participants and not just those who do not have any missing data. Missing data are common in research. In a previous JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods, Newgard and Lewis2 reviewed the causes of missing data. These are divided into 3 classes: 1) missing completely at random, the most restrictive assumption, indicating that whether a data point is missing is completely unrelated to observed and unobserved data; 2) missing at random, a more realistic assumption than missing completely at random, indicating whether a data point is missing can be explained by the observed data; or 3) missing not at random, meaning that the missingness is dependent on the unobserved values. Common statistical methods used for handling missing values were reviewed.2 When missing data occur, it is important to not exclude cases with missing information (analyses after such exclusion are known as complete case analyses). Single-value imputation methods are those that estimate what each missing value might have been and replace it with a single value in the data set. Single-value imputation methods include mean imputation, last observation carried forward, and random imputation. These approaches can yield biased results and are suboptimal. Multiple imputation better handles missing data by estimating and replacing missing values many times.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2015.15281

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Li, P., Stuart, E. A., & Allison, D. B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2015-11-10
Volume
314
Issue
18
Pages
1966
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2124127323
Cited by
621
References
8
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multiple Imputation: A Flexible Tool for Handling Missing Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2015.15281
The paper
Li, P., Stuart, E. A., & Allison, D. B. (2015). Multiple Imputation: A Flexible Tool for Handling Missing Data. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15281

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.