Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

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 access
Mackinnon, A.·2010·Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02274.x

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 229

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.