Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35502776›Full record

ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing

The Use of Multiple Imputation to Handle Missing Data in Secondary Datasets: Suggested Approaches when Missing Data Results from the Survey Structure.

Soojung Jo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Soojung JoCollege of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2129-4373

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Secondary datasets are used in healthcare research because of its cost advantages, its convenience, and the size of the datasets. However, missing data can cause problems that are difficult to resolve. This manuscript reviews possible causes for missing data, and how to address them. Many researchers use multiple imputation as a solution, which consists of three phases: (a) the imputation phase, (b) the analysis phase, and (c) the pooling phase. When missing data is caused by a refusal to answer or by insufficient knowledge, multiple imputation works well. However, difficulties arise when there are problems with screening questions. If respondents do not answer a screening question, possible answers could be either "yes" or "no." This paper suggests identifying "yes" responses on the screening question, and setting them aside for use in the analysis. The reasons for this approach are the impossibility of conducting multiple imputation twice, the problem of imputation based on the population after sample weight, and the difficulty of producing logical errors on the estimation in imputation phase. This manuscript uses as an example the techniques used to address missing data from screening questions in a national US dataset. These techniques of multiple imputation using examples from the dataset could be used by researchers in future healthcare research that relies on secondary datasets.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSurveys and Questionnairesmethodmissing datamultiple imputationquantitativesecondary analysis

Identifiers

PMID35502776
PMCPMC9069597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.