Abstract
Background Statistical models are powerful tools that can be used to understand complex relationships in health systems. Statistical assumptions are a part of a framework for understanding analysed data, enabling valid inferences and conclusions. When poorly analysed, studies can result in misleading conclusions, which, in turn, may lead to ineffective or even harmful treatments and poorer health outcomes. This study examines researchers’ understanding of the commonly used statistical model of linear regression. It examines understanding around assumptions, identifies common misconceptions, and recommends improvements to practice.
Methods One hundred papers were randomly sampled from the journal PLOS ONE, which used linear regression in the materials and methods section and were from the health and biomedical field in 2019. Two independent volunteer statisticians rated each paper for the reporting of linear regression assumptions. The prevalence of assumptions reported by authors was described using frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals. The agreement of statistical raters was assessed using Gwet’s statistic.
Results Of the 95 papers that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 37% reported checking any linear regression assumptions, 22% reported checking one assumption, and no authors checked all assumptions. The biggest misconception was that the Y variable should be checked for normality, with only 5 of the 28 papers correctly checking the residuals for normality.
Conclusion The prevalence of reporting linear regression assumptions remains low. When reported, they were often incorrectly checked, with very few authors showing any detail of their checks. To improve reporting of linear regression, a significant change in practice needs to occur across multiple levels of research, from teaching to journal reviewing. The focus should be on understanding results where the underlying statistical theory is viewed through the lens of “everything is a regression” rather than deploying rote-learned statistics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was granted ethics approval from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Human Research Ethics Committee and was approved under the category Human, Negligible-Low Risk (approval number: 2000000458).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw data and a reproducible R Quarto file used to produce this paper, including all tables and figures have been stored in a GitHub repository and can be accessed at https://zenodo.org/records/10645770
