Should multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
Thomas Sullivan; Ian R. White; Amy Salter; Philip Ryan; Katherine J. Lee · 2016 · Statistical Methods in Medical Research
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
The use of multiple imputation has increased markedly in recent years, and journal reviewers may expect to see multiple imputation used to handle missing data. However in randomized trials, where treatment group is always observed and…
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results*
Negative / Null Result ReportThe harmonic mean p -value for combining dependent tests
Negative / Null Result ReportGeneralizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
Negative / Null Result ReportNumerical predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1–6
Negative / Null Result ReportMethods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics
Negative / Null Result ReportMisuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1177/0962280216683570