Cited by 178Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The correlation between baseline score and post-intervention score, and its implications for statistical analysis

Open access
Clifton, Lei, Clifton, David A.·2019·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When using a continuous outcome measure in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the baseline score should be measured in addition to the post-intervention score, and it should be analysed using the appropriate statistical analysis. METHODS: We derive the correlation between the change score and baseline score and show that there is always a correlation (usually negative) between the change score and baseline score. We discuss the following correlations and provide the mathematical derivations in the Appendix: Correlation between change score and baseline score Correlation between change score and post score Correlation between change score and average score. The setting here is a parallel, two-arm RCT, but the method discussed in this paper is applicable for any studies or trials that have a continuous outcome measure; it is not restricted to RCTs. RESULTS: We show that using the change score as the outcome measure does not address the problem of regression to the mean, nor does it take account of the baseline imbalance. Whether the outcome is change score or post score, one should always adjust for baseline using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); otherwise, the estimated treat effect may be biased. We show that these correlations also apply when comparing two measurement methods using Bland-Altman plots. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between baseline and post-intervention scores can be derived using the variance sum law. We can then use the derived correlation to calculate the required sample size in the design stage. Baseline imbalance may occur in RCTs, and ANCOVA should be used to adjust for baseline in the analysis stage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13063-018-3108-3

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 178

Authors
Clifton, L., & Clifton, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Clifton, Lei
Venue
Trials
Published
2019-01-11
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
43-43
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914567765
Cited by
178
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
11.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P009824/1, EP/N020774/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
change scores, regression to the mean, baseline imbalance, covariance analysis, randomized controlled trials, sample size determination, Bland-Altman plot, measurement method comparison, treatment effect bias
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Endpoint Determination

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