The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A practical guide to multiple imputation of missing data in nephrology
Open accessAbstract
Health data are often plagued with missing values which can greatly reduce the sample size if only complete cases are considered for analysis. Furthermore, analyses which ignore the missing data have the potential to introduce bias in the parameter estimates. Multiple imputation techniques have been developed to recover the information that would otherwise be lost when excluding observations with missing data and to help minimise bias. However, the validity of analyses using imputed data relies on the imputation model having been correctly specified. The aim of this guide is to aid the reader in the decision-making process when conducting an analysis with multiply imputed data, in the context of nephrology research. We discuss: 1) missing mechanism assumption; 2) imputation method; 3) imputation model; 4) derived variables; 5) number of imputed datasets; 6) diagnostic checks; 7) analysis and pooling of results; and 8) reporting the results. This process is demonstrated using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to explore the association between hypertension and kidney disease in adults from the general population. Example code is provided for SAS and the mice package in R.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R
Buuren, S. V., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03 · Cited by 13,870
Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4067 · Cited by 9,792
Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., Wood, A. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393 · Cited by 7,299
Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification
van Buuren, S. (2007) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280206074463 · Cited by 2,827
A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures.
Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C.-M. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.4.330 · Cited by 2,389
Flexible Imputation of Missing Data
van Buuren, S. (2012) · doi:10.1201/b11826 · Cited by 2,022
4. Regression with Missing Ys: An Improved Strategy for Analyzing Multiply Imputed Data
von Hippel, P. T. (2007) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00180.x · Cited by 1,495
Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation
Van Buuren, S., Brand, J. P. L., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., & Rubin, D. B. (2006) · Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · doi:10.1080/10629360600810434 · Cited by 1,217
What is the difference between missing completely at random and missing at random?
Bhaskaran, K., & Smeeth, L. (2014) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyu080 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Blazek, K., van Zwieten, A., Saglimbene, V., & Teixeira-Pinto, A.
- Venue
- Kidney International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-74
- ISSN
- 0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3049537026
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 9.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A practical guide to multiple imputation of missing data in nephrology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.kint.2020.07.035
- The paper
- Blazek, K., van Zwieten, A., Saglimbene, V., & Teixeira-Pinto, A. (2021). A practical guide to multiple imputation of missing data in nephrology. Kidney International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2020.07.035
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.