Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study

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.