Sentence examples for multiple imputation allows from inspiring English sources

25 Multiple imputation allows all cases (N=1785) to be included in the analysis.

Multiple imputation allows intent-to-treat analysis by permitting inclusion in the analysis of all enrolled study participants [ 53].

Multiple imputation allows analyses that can result in valid statistical inferences, while still incorporating the uncertainty of missing values (Schafer, 1977; Burton and Altman, 2004).

Use of multiple imputation allowed us to account for the potential bias caused by missing data.

To increase power and overcome the risk of introducing selection bias by analysing only the complete case dataset, we used chained multiple imputation, allowing us to maintain participants with incomplete data [ 31].

Multiple imputation allowed all 653 patients to be included in the modelling process and confirmed all the variables included in the 'transformed' model with increased significance for metastases (P=0.001), and the model also included nodal status (P=0.016) that had been excluded from all models prior to imputation, suggesting a strong link with other variables already in the model.

To overcome this bias we used multiple imputation, which allows for the uncertainty about missing data by creating several plausible imputed datasets and appropriately combining their results.

Multiple imputation therefore allows patients with incomplete data to still be included in analyses, thereby making full use of all the available data, thus increasing power and precision but without compromising validity.

Multiple imputation therefore allows patients with incomplete data to still be included in analyses, thereby making full use of all the available data, and thus increasing power and precision, but without compromising validity.

In order for Rubin's rules to produce valid results, multiple imputation must allow for uncertainty in the parameters of the imputation model.

In a sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation to allow for missing outcome data, the mean difference was 4.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 6.6; P<0.001).