Cited by 78Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Regression to the mean in substance use disorder treatment research

Finney, John W.·2008·Addiction

Abstract

Aims Regression to the mean (RTM) refers to the tendency for a group of cases that differ from the population mean to move (regress) towards the mean, on average, when re‐assessed, if scores at the two points are less than perfectly correlated. This paper considers factors that affect the magnitude of RTM and how RTM may impact findings from primary studies and reviews of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Design and methods The paper is guided largely by A Primer on Regression Artifacts by Campbell and Kenny. It reviews potential RTM effects in three areas of SUD treatment research. One is the extent to which within‐group improvement in comparative treatment trials, including ‘placebo effects’, is a function of RTM. The second is the vulnerability of treatment evaluations employing non‐equivalent control group designs to RTM and biased estimates of treatment effects when matching, or statistical equating is used to adjust for pre‐existing group differences. The final issue is the impact of RTM in syntheses of research findings on SUD treatments. In particular, the tendency for later studies of a particular intervention to have smaller treatment effect sizes relative to earlier studies is considered as an RTM phenomenon. Findings RTM is a pervasive, but often unrecognized phenomenon that can bias findings in SUD treatment studies and in systematic reviews of that research. Conclusion SUD treatment researchers should be aware of RTM, take any available steps to reduce it, and try to diagnose whether it is still affecting research findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02032.x

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finney, J. W.
Affiliations
VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Finney, John W.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12-07
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
42-52
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2122068549
Cited by
78
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
regression to the mean, addiction treatment, placebo effect, matching, treatment effect size, systematic reviews
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review