↓ Skip to main content

Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-9-57
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Marshall, Douglas G Altman, Roger L Holder, Patrick Royston

Abstract

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 5 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 231 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 26%
Researcher 49 20%
Student > Master 38 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 62 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 46%
Unspecified 37 15%
Mathematics 27 11%
Psychology 17 7%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Other 44 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,149,899
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#330
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,666
of 221,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.