This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 30 May 2017
Accepted: 24 November 2017
Published: 6 December 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org.
|30 May 2017||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|3 Jul 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jehanzeb Cheema|
|20 Aug 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Ying Yuan|
|10 Sep 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Janus Jakobsen|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|10 Sep 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|28 Sep 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jehanzeb Cheema|
|4 Oct 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Ying Yuan|
|18 Nov 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Janus Jakobsen|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|18 Nov 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|24 Nov 2017||Editorially accepted|
|6 Dec 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1|
How does Open Peer Review work?
Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article are available by contacting email@example.com.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.