Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41244606›Full record

ArticleBiometrika2025

Resampling methods with multiply imputed data.

Michael W Robbins, Lane Burgette

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrika, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Michael W RobbinsRAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Avenue #600, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4972-1733
Lane BurgetteRAND Corporation, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA.

Funding

Data Fusion for Predicting Long-term Program ImpactsR21AG058123 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI ROBBINS, MICHAEL · 2018 to 2019
$381k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG058123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resampling techniques have become increasingly popular for estimation of uncertainty. However, data are often fraught with missing values that are commonly imputed to facilitate analysis. This article addresses the issue of using resampling methods such as a jackknife or bootstrap in conjunction with imputations that have been sampled stochastically, in the vein of multiple imputation. We derive the theory needed to illustrate two key points regarding the use of resampling methods in lieu of traditional combining rules. First, imputations should be independently generated multiple times within each replicate group of a jackknife or bootstrap. Second, the number of multiply imputed datasets per replicate group must dramatically exceed the number of replicate groups for a jackknife; however, this is not the case in a bootstrap approach. We also discuss bias-adjusted analogues of the jackknife and bootstrap that are argued to require fewer imputed datasets. A simulation study is provided to support these theoretical conclusions.

Indexed as

BootstrapJackknifeMissing dataMultiple imputation

Identifiers

PMID41244606
PMCPMC12614170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.