Health care providers depend on the findings of observational intervention studies and systematic reviews of those studies to make evidence-based decisions about their clients' care. The nonrandom methods of group formation in observational studies necessitate carefully assessing threats to the validity of conclusions. Regression to the mean is a source of change in clinical outcome measures that has escaped widespread notice as a potential threat to the accuracy of conclusions from observational studies and systematic reviews thereof. Failure to assess the degree to which regression confounds study results elevates the risk of making clinical decisions using biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. Because the change in average outcome scores due to regression can be quantified, it is a type of bias whose direct influence can be known. Yet determining and reporting change due to regression is uncommon in observational studies or systematic reviews thereof. The means to quantify change due to regression in average outcome scores is illustrated by example in this article.
Bland, J.M., & Altman, D.G. (1994). Regression towards the mean. British Medical Journal, 308, 1499.
2.
Campbell, D.T., & Kenny, D.A. (1999). A primer on regression artifacts. New York: Guilford.
3.
Davis, C.E. (1976). The effect of regression to the mean in epidemiologic and clinical studies. Journal ofEpidemiology, 104, 493-498.
4.
Deeks, J.J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A.J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., et al. (2003). Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7, 1-173.
5.
Des Jarlais, D.C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361-366.
6.
Ederer, F. (1972). Serum cholesterol: Effects of diet and regression toward the mean. Journal ofChronic Disability, 25, 277-289.
7.
Eschwege, E., Charles, M.A., Simon, D., Thibult, N., Balkau, B., & the Paris Prospective Study. ( 2001). Reproducibility of the diagnosis of diabetes over a 30-month follow-up: The Paris Prospective Study. Diabetes Care, 24, 1941-1944.
8.
Fogari, R., Corradi, L., Zoppi, A., Lusardi, P., & Poletti, L. (1996). Repeated office blood pressure controls reduce the prevalence of white-coat hypertension and detect a group of white-coat normotensive patients. Blood Pressure Monitoring, 1, 51-54.
9.
Galton, F. (1886). Regression toward mediocrity in hereditary stature . Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 15, 246-263.
10.
Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Hopkins, K.D. (1969). Regression and the matching fallacy in quasi-experimental research. Journal of Special Education, 3, 329-336.
12.
Isojävri, J.I.T., Rättyä, J., Myllylä, V.V., Knip, M., Koivunen, R., Pakarinen, A.J., et al. (1998). Valproate, lamotrigine, and insulin-mediated risks in women with epilepsy. Annals of Neurology, 43, 446-451.
13.
Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association,282, 1054-1060.
14.
Kinali, M., Mercuri, E., Main, M., De Biasia, F., Karatza, A., Higgins, R., et al. (2002). Pilot trial of albuterol in spinal muscular atrophy. Neurology, 59, 609—610.
15.
Linn, R.L., & Slinde, J.A. (1977). The determination of the significance of change between pre- and post-testing periods. Review of Educational Research, 47, 121-150.
16.
Lord, F.M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons . Psychological Bulletin,68, 304-305.
17.
Nesselroade, J.R., Stigler, S.M., & Baltes, P.B. (1980). Regression to the mean and the study of change . Psychological Bulletin,88, 622-637.
18.
Norris, S.L., & Atkins, D. (2005). Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Annals of Internal Medicine , 142, 1112-1119.
19.
Nunnally, J.C. (1975). The study of change in evaluation research: Principles concerning measurement, experimental design, and analysis. In E. L. Struening & M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (Vol. 1, pp. 106-107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Pearce, K.A., Evans, G.W., Summerson, J., & Rao, J.S. (1997). Comparison of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and repeated office measurements in primary care. Journal ofFamily Practice, 45, 426-433.
21.
Stergiou, G.S., Baibas, N.M., Gantzarou, A.P., Skeva, I.I., Kalkana, C.B., Roussias, L.G., et al. (2002). Reproducibility of home, ambulatory, and clinic blood pressure: implications for the design of trials for the assessment of antihypertensive drug efficacy. American Journal ofHypertension , 15, 101-104.
22.
Stergiou, G.S., Efstathiou, S.P., Argyraki, C.K., Gantzarou, A.P., Roussias, L.G., & Mountokalakis, T.D. (2002). Clinic, home and ambulatory pulse pressure: comparison and reproducibility. Journal ofHypertension, 20, 1987-1993.
23.
Stigler, S.M. (1997). Regression towards the mean, historically considered. StatisticalMethods in Medical Research, 6, 103-114.
24.
Stroup, D.F., Berlin, J.A., Morton, S.C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G.D., Rennie, D., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2008-2012.
25.
Thorndike, R.L. (1942). Regression fallacies in the matched groups experiment . Psychometrika, 7, 85-102.
26.
West, S., King, V., Carey, T.S., Lohr, K.N., McKoy, N., Sutton, S.F., et al. (2002, April). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence (Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47, Research Triangle Institute—University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, Contract No. 290-97-0011; AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
