Abstract
Background Decisions about health care, such as the effectiveness of new treatments for disease, are regularly made based on evidence from published work. However, poor reporting of statistical methods and results is endemic across health research and risks ineffective or harmful treatments being used in clinical practice. Statistical modelling choices often greatly influence the results. Authors do not always provide enough information to evaluate and repeat their methods, making interpreting results difficult. Our research is designed to understand current reporting practices and inform efforts to educate researchers.
Methods Reporting practices for linear regression were assessed in 95 randomly sampled published papers in the health field from PLOS ONE in 2019, which were randomly allocated to statisticians for post-publication review. The prevalence of reporting practices is described using frequencies, percentages, and Wilson 95% confidence intervals.
Results While 92% of authors reported p-values and 81% reported regression coefficients, only 58% of papers reported a measure of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals or standard errors. Sixty-nine percent of authors did not discuss the scientific importance of estimates, and only 23% directly interpreted the size of coefficients.
Conclusion Our results indicate that statistical methods and results were often poorly reported without sufficient detail to reproduce them. To improve statistical quality and direct health funding to effective treatments, we recommend that statisticians be involved in the research cycle, from study design to post-peer review. The research environment is an ecosystem, and future interventions addressing poor statistical quality should consider the interactions between the individuals, organisations and policy environments. Practical recommendations include journals producing templates with standardised reporting and using interactive checklists to improve reporting practices. Investments in research maintenance and quality control are required to assess and implement these recommendations to improve the quality of health research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://github.com/Lee-V-Jones/statistical-quality
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:
Negligible-Low Risk Ethics from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Human Research Ethics Committee
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://github.com/Lee-V-Jones/Linear_Regression_Reporting_Practices
https://github.com/Lee-V-Jones/Linear_Regression_Reporting_Practices
