The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The use and reporting of multiple imputation in medical research – a review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Mackinnon A (Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia) The use and reporting of multiple imputation in medical research – a review. J Intern Med 2010; 268: 586–593. Background. Multiple imputation (MI) is an advanced, principled method of dealing with missing data in statistical analyses, a common problem in medical research. This paper sought to document the use of MI in general medical journals and to evaluate the information provided to readers about the application of the procedure in studies. Methods. Research articles using MI in analyses published in JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, BMJ and the Lancet were identified using full text searches from the earliest date each journal offered such searches until the end of 2008. Ninety‐nine articles were found. Studies were classified according to their design. Results. Multiple imputation was used in 49 RCTs and 50 other types of studies. A third of the articles (n = 33) reported no details of the procedure used. In a third of these (n = 11), it was not possible to infer the approach used from references cited or software used. The nature of the imputation model was rarely reported. MI was frequently used as a secondary analysis (n = 40) either to justify reporting a simpler approach or as a form of sensitivity analysis. Conclusions. Whilst still relatively uncommon, the use of MI has risen substantially, particularly in trials. MI is rarely adequately reported, leading to doubt about its appropriateness in some cases. This gives rise to uncertainty about conclusions reached and poses a barrier to attempts to replicate analyses. Guidelines for the reporting of MI should be developed.
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
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values
Little, R. J. A. (1988) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 · Cited by 8,963
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
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Schafer, J. L. (1997) · doi:10.1201/9781439821862 · Cited by 6,012
Multiple imputation after 18+ years
Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476908 · Cited by 4,072
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
Unützer, J., Katon, W., Callahan, C. M., Williams, Jr., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hoffing, M., Della Penna, R. D., Noël, P. H., Lin, E. H. B., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2836 · Cited by 2,405
Modeling the Drop-Out Mechanism in Repeated-Measures Studies
Little, R. J. A. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476615 · Cited by 1,522
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Moons, K. G. M., de Groot, J. A. H., Bouwmeester, W., Vergouwe, Y., Mallett, S., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., & Collins, G. S. (2014) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744 · Cited by 2,018
“Numerous recommendations for reporting missing data in medical research have been proposed [103,104,114,115].”
BackgroundReporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review
Bouwmeester, W., Zuithoff, N. P. A., Mallett, S., Geerlings, M. I., Vergouwe, Y., Steyerberg, E. W., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2012) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221 · Cited by 600
Estimating Missing Data in Temporal Data Streams Using Multi-Directional Recurrent Neural Networks
Yoon, J., Zame, W. R., & van der Schaar, M. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2018.2874712 · Cited by 341
Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
Sullivan, T. R., White, I. R., Salter, A. B., Ryan, P., & Lee, K. J. (2018) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280216683570 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Mackinnon, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-09-10
- Volume
- 268
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 586-593
- ISSN
- 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2796
- OpenAlex
- W1529643479
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 8.08
- 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: The use and reporting of multiple imputation in medical research – a review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02274.x
- The paper
- Mackinnon, A. (2010). The use and reporting of multiple imputation in medical research – a review. Journal of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02274.x
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.