Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233609›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Consequences of ignoring clustering in linear regression.

Georgia Ntani, Hazel Inskip, Clive Osmond, David Coggon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Stroke burden and associated predictors: A methodological reflection.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Authors' response: Statistical methodology critique and alternative approaches in H5Nx avian influenza seroprevalence study among French cats.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Georgia NtaniMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. gn@mrc.soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7481-6860
Hazel InskipMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Clive OsmondMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
David CoggonMedical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Colt Foundation PhD ScholarshipMedical Research Council MC_UU_12011/4Versus Arthritis 22090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClustering of observations is a common phenomenon in epidemiological and clinical research. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of using multilevel analysis to account for such clustering, but in practice, methods ignoring clustering are often employed. We used simulated data to explore the circumstances in which failure to account for clustering in linear regression could lead to importantly erroneous conclusions.

methodsWe simulated data following the random-intercept model specification under different scenarios of clustering of a continuous outcome and a single continuous or binary explanatory variable. We fitted random-intercept (RI) and ordinary least squares (OLS) models and compared effect estimates with the "true" value that had been used in simulation. We also assessed the relative precision of effect estimates, and explored the extent to which coverage by 95% confidence intervals and Type I error rates were appropriate.

resultsWe found that effect estimates from both types of regression model were on average unbiased. However, deviations from the "true" value were greater when the outcome variable was more clustered. For a continuous explanatory variable, they tended also to be greater for the OLS than the RI model, and when the explanatory variable was less clustered. The precision of effect estimates from the OLS model was overestimated when the explanatory variable varied more between than within clusters, and was somewhat underestimated when the explanatory variable was less clustered. The cluster-unadjusted model gave poor coverage rates by 95% confidence intervals and high Type I error rates when the explanatory variable was continuous. With a binary explanatory variable, coverage rates by 95% confidence intervals and Type I error rates deviated from nominal values when the outcome variable was more clustered, but the direction of the deviation varied according to the overall prevalence of the explanatory variable, and the extent to which it was clustered.

conclusionsIn this study we identified circumstances in which application of an OLS regression model to clustered data is more likely to mislead statistical inference. The potential for error is greatest when the explanatory variable is continuous, and the outcome variable more clustered (intraclass correlation coefficient is ≥ 0.01).

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLinear ModelsBiasClusteringComparisonConsequencesLinear regressionRandom intercept modelSimulation

Identifiers

PMID34233609
PMCPMC8265092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.