ArticlePloS one2025
Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analyzing the mahakam river water quality using the geographically weighted panel regression model.MethodsX · 2026Article
- The Impact of Fear of Missing out (FoMO) on Addictive Eating: A Moderated Mediation Model.Nutrients · 2026Article
- From eveningness to food addiction: exploring the roles of night eating syndrome and mindful eating.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Coping Strategies and Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistical models are valuable tools for interpreting complex relationships within health systems. These models rely on a framework of statistical assumptions that, when correctly addressed, enable valid inferences and conclusions. However, failure to appropriately address these assumptions can lead to flawed analyses, resulting in misleading conclusions and contributing to the adoption of ineffective or harmful treatments and poorer health outcomes. This study examines researchers' understanding of the widely used linear regression model, focusing on assumptions, common misconceptions, and recommendations for improving research practices.
methodsOne 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionThe reporting of linear regression assumptions is alarmingly low. When assumptions are checked, the reporting is often inadequate or incorrectly checked. Addressing these issues requires a cultural shift in research practices, including improved statistical training, more rigorous journal review processes, and a broader understanding of regression as a unifying framework. Greater emphasis must be placed on evaluating model assumptions and their implications rather than the rote application of statistical methods. Careful consideration of assumptions helps improve the reliability of statistical conclusions, reducing the risk of misleading findings influencing clinical practice and potentially affecting patient outcomes.
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.