ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Conceptual framework as a guide to choose appropriate imputation method for missing values in a clinical structured dataset.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic Prognostication in Female Oncofertility Counseling: Ethical Challenges of Bias, Autonomy, and Predictive Uncertainty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Decision-Support Framework for Nutritional Risk in Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Time-Series Model Using Imputation Strategies for Incomplete Clinical Data.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Assessing imputation techniques for missing data in small and multicollinear datasets: insights from craniofacial morphometry.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Analysis and implications of validation results for a clinical data-based early warning model for geriatric sepsis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMissing data is a common challenge in structured datasets, and numerous methods are available for imputing these missing values. While all of these imputation methods address the issue of incomplete data, it is important to note that some methods perform better than others in terms of their effectiveness. A thorough data analysis can help a researcher identify a given dataset's most appropriate imputation approach, leading to more reliable analytical results. The primary objective of this study is to develop a conceptual framework that integrates various data imputation methods.
methodsThis study was conducted in two main steps. First, we defined the conceptual components and their interrelationships by identifying and categorizing primary concepts through a secondary analysis of our previous systematic review, which examined 58 studies to uncover influential factors for selecting optimal imputation methods. Second, we analyzed the implementation process, focusing on the properties of missing values and selecting appropriate imputation techniques while verifying the underlying assumptions according to the estimand framework from the ICH E9(R1) Guideline to ensure unbiased estimates and enhance the credibility of our findings.
resultsThe findings from the secondary analysis suggest that the primary concepts of the developed conceptual framework directly influence the selection of appropriate imputation methods.
conclusionsThis integrated structure will enable researchers to select the most suitable imputation method based on the specific characteristics and conditions of the dataset under investigation. By employing the appropriate imputation method, the study aims to enhance the overall quality and trustworthiness of the analytical outcomes derived from the research dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.