Jones Lee, Barnett Adrian, Vagenas Dimitrios
Research Methods Group, Faculty of Health, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.
AusHSI, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0299617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299617. eCollection 2025.
BACKGROUND: Statistical 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. 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 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.
背景:统计模型是解释卫生系统内复杂关系的宝贵工具。这些模型依赖于一个统计假设框架,若能正确处理这些假设,就能得出有效的推断和结论。然而,未能恰当处理这些假设可能导致分析存在缺陷,从而得出误导性结论,并促使采用无效或有害的治疗方法,进而导致更差的健康结果。本研究考察了研究人员对广泛使用的线性回归模型的理解,重点关注假设、常见误解以及改进研究实践的建议。 方法:从《公共科学图书馆·综合》杂志中随机抽取100篇论文,这些论文在材料与方法部分使用了线性回归,且来自2019年的健康与生物医学领域。两名独立的志愿者统计学家对每篇论文中线性回归假设的报告进行评分。作者报告的假设的流行程度用频率、百分比和95%置信区间来描述。使用格韦特统计量评估统计评分者之间的一致性。 结果:在符合纳入和排除标准的95篇论文中,只有37%的论文报告检查了任何线性回归假设,22%的论文报告检查了一个假设,没有作者检查所有假设。最大的误解是应该检查Y变量的正态性,在28篇论文中只有5篇正确地检查了残差的正态性。 结论:线性回归假设的报告率低得惊人。在检查假设时,报告往往不充分或检查错误。解决这些问题需要研究实践中的文化转变,包括改进统计培训、更严格的期刊审稿流程,以及将回归作为一个统一框架的更广泛理解。必须更加重视评估模型假设及其影响,而不是机械地应用统计方法。仔细考虑假设有助于提高统计结论的可靠性,降低误导性发现影响临床实践并可能影响患者结局的风险。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014-8
R Soc Open Sci. 2025-4-30
2025-1
Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2025-7-17
BMC Res Notes. 2022-6-11
Trials. 2022-6-2
Behav Res Methods. 2021-12