ReviewStatistics in medicine2022
Review and evaluation of imputation methods for multivariate longitudinal data with mixed-type incomplete variables.
Review in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining a Likely Mechanism of Missingness in Repeated Measures Sleep Data From Wearable Fitness Trackers: Longitudinal Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Uncovering treatment effect heterogeneity in pragmatic gerontology trials.Experimental gerontology · 2026Article
- Missing Value Imputation With Adversarial Random Forests-MissARF.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Deep Mixture of Linear Mixed Models for Complex Longitudinal Data.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Health Utility Survival for Randomized Clinical Trials: Extensions and Statistical Properties.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Bias and Efficiency Comparison between Multiple Imputation and Available-Case Analysis for Missing Data in Longitudinal Models.Statistics in biosciences · 2025Article
- Multiple Imputation for Longitudinal Data: A Tutorial.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating relationships between multiple incomplete patient measurements requires methods to cope with missing values. Multiple imputation is one approach to address missing data by filling in plausible values for those that are missing. Multiple imputation procedures can be classified into two broad types: joint modeling (JM) and fully conditional specification (FCS). JM fits a multivariate distribution for the entire set of variables, but it may be complex to define and implement. FCS imputes missing data variable-by-variable from a set of conditional distributions. In many studies, FCS is easier to define and implement than JM, but it may be based on incompatible conditional models. Imputation methods based on multilevel modeling show improved operating characteristics when imputing longitudinal data, but they can be computationally intensive, especially when imputing multiple variables simultaneously. We review current MI methods for incomplete longitudinal data and their implementation on widely accessible software. Using simulated data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, we compare their performance for monotone and intermittent missing data patterns. Our simulations demonstrate that in a longitudinal study with a limited number of repeated observations and time-varying variables, FCS-Standard is a computationally efficient imputation method that is accurate and precise for univariate single-level and multilevel regression models. When the analyses comprise multivariate multilevel models, FCS-LMM-latent is a statistically valid procedure with overall more accurate estimates, but it requires more intensive computations. Imputation methods based on generalized linear multilevel models can lead to biased subject-level variance estimates when the statistical analyses involve hierarchical models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.