The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple imputation (MI) provides an effective approach to handle missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies, as it can properly account for the missing data uncertainty. The multiply imputed datasets are each analysed using standard prognostic modelling techniques to obtain the estimates of interest. The estimates from each imputed dataset are then combined into one overall estimate and variance, incorporating both the within and between imputation variability. Rubin's rules for combining these multiply imputed estimates are based on asymptotic theory. The resulting combined estimates may be more accurate if the posterior distribution of the population parameter of interest is better approximated by the normal distribution. However, the normality assumption may not be appropriate for all the parameters of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies, such as predicted survival probabilities and model performance measures. METHODS: Guidelines for combining the estimates of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies are provided. A literature review is performed to identify current practice for combining such estimates in prognostic modelling studies. RESULTS: Methods for combining all reported estimates after MI were not well reported in the current literature. Rubin's rules without applying any transformations were the standard approach used, when any method was stated. CONCLUSION: The proposed simple guidelines for combining estimates after MI may lead to a wider and more appropriate use of MI in future prognostic modelling studies.
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
Statistical Methods for Research Workers
(1945) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/15.11.552b · Cited by 10,880
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,195
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Schafer, J. L. (1997) · doi:10.1201/9781439821862 · Cited by 6,012
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Booth, D. E. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2000.10486013 · Cited by 5,627
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118
Robust Statistics: The Approach Based on Influence Functions
Ruppert, D. (1987) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1269782 · Cited by 3,880
Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time-to-Event Data
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. A., & May, S. J. (2008) · Cited by 3,030
How Many Imputations are Really Needed? Some Practical Clarifications of Multiple Imputation Theory
Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9 · Cited by 2,795
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R., & Holford, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00048-8 · Cited by 2,154
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
Self-citationMoons, K. G. M., Wolff, R. F., Riley, R. D., Whiting, P. F., Westwood, M., Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Kleijnen, J., & Mallett, S. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1377 · Cited by 1,669
Ganna, A., & Ingelsson, E. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60175-1 · Cited by 411
Handling missing data in clinical research
Heymans, M. W., & Twisk, J. W. R. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.016 · Cited by 399
Akl, E. A., Briel, M., You, J. J., Sun, X., Johnston, B. C., Busse, J. W., Mulla, S., Lamontagne, F., Bassler, D., Vera, C., et al. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e2809 · Cited by 350
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, A., Altman, D. G., Holder, R. L., & Royston, P.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2009-07-28
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-57
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161743657
- Cited by
- 874
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 6.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-9-57
- The paper
- Marshall, A., Altman, D. G., Holder, R. L., & Royston, P. (2009). Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-57
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.