Systematic review shows multiple imputation does not improve treatment effect estimates, suggesting sample size adjustments are reasonable.
Multiple imputation did not consistently lead to more precise treatment effect estimates than complete case analysis in the trials included in the review. Findings should not be construed as an argument against the use of multiple imputation but suggest the standard approach of inflating the sample size for anticipated loss to follow-up is reasonable when multiple imputation is planned for analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sullivan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: