ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013
Assessing regression to the mean effects in health care initiatives.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiorespiratory and Metabolic Responses After Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adults With Obesity: Systematic Review.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Quantifying child growth effects using height-age instead of height-for-age z-scores in a meta-analysis of small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplement trials.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2021Pooled it
- The Impact of Housing First on Criminal Justice Outcomes among Homeless People with Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2019Pooled it
- Testing the efficacy of a self-guided psychotherapy intervention for infertility-related distress: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of a Parent-Based eHealth Intervention on Physical Activity, Dietary Behaviors, and Sleep in Preschoolers: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Impact of warm mindfulness on emotion regulation: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2023Trial
- Hospital Readmissions by Variation in Engagement in the Health Care Hotspotting Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Effects of risperidone/paliperidone versus placebo on cognitive functioning over the first 6 months of treatment for psychotic disorder: secondary analysis of a triple-blind randomised clinical trial.Translational psychiatry · 2023Trial
- Predicting smoking cessation, reduction and relapse six months after using the Stop-Tabac app for smartphones: a machine learning analysis.BMC public health · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of a Stand-alone Telephone-Delivered Intervention for Reducing Problem Alcohol Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA psychiatry · 2022Trial
- A novel (targeted) kinesio taping application on chronic low back pain: Randomized clinical trial.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Awareness of Prediabetes Status and Subsequent Health Behavior, Body Weight, and Blood Glucose Levels.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMTrial
- Virtual Reality-Assisted Rehabilitation for Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Stunting Reversal versus Regression to the Mean in Epidemiological Studies of Child Linear Growth in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterventions targeting individuals classified as "high-risk" have become common-place in health care. High-risk may represent outlier values on utilization, cost, or clinical measures. Typically, such individuals are invited to participate in an intervention intended to reduce their level of risk, and after a period of time, a follow-up measurement is taken. However, individuals initially identified by their outlier values will likely have lower values on re-measurement in the absence of an intervention. This statistical phenomenon is known as "regression to the mean" (RTM) and often leads to an inaccurate conclusion that the intervention caused the effect. Concerns about RTM are rarely raised in connection with most health care interventions, and it is uncommon to find evaluators who estimate its effect. This may be due to lack of awareness, cognitive biases that may cause people to systematically misinterpret RTM effects by creating (erroneous) explanations to account for it, or by design.
methodsIn this paper, the author fully describes the RTM phenomenon, and tests the accuracy of the traditional approach in calculating RTM assuming normality, using normally distributed data from a Monte Carlo simulation and skewed data from a control group in a pre-post evaluation of a health intervention. Confidence intervals are generated around the traditional RTM calculation to provide more insight into the potential magnitude of the bias introduced by RTM. Finally, suggestions are offered for designing interventions and evaluations to mitigate the effects of RTM.
resultsOn multivariate normal data, the calculated RTM estimates are identical to true estimates. As expected, when using skewed data the calculated method underestimated the true RTM effect. Confidence intervals provide helpful guidance on the magnitude of the RTM effect.
conclusionDecision-makers should always consider RTM to be a viable explanation of the observed change in an outcome in a pre-post study, and evaluators of health care initiatives should always take the appropriate steps to estimate the magnitude of the effect and control for it when possible. Regardless of the cause, failure to address RTM may result in wasteful pursuit of ineffective interventions, both at the organizational level and at the policy level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.