Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Public Health and Nutrition›Multilevel Analysis

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Multilevel Analysis

Public Health and Nutrition · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

The statistical manipulation of hierarchically and non-hierarchically nested data.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,093 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The statistical manipulation of hierarchically and non-hierarchically nested data. It includes clustered data, such as a sample of subjects within a group of schools. Prevalent in the social, behavioral sciences, and biomedical sciences, both linear and nonlinear regression models are applied.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Analyses, Multilevel; Analysis, Multilevel; Multilevel Analyses.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Statistics as Topic

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 3,794 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Multilevel Analysis” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 1,809 of them (47.7%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 1,974 records.

Reviews account for 102 records (2.7%) and meta-analyses for 57. Randomized controlled trials number 109 (2.9%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 0 records; 2000-2009: 98 records; 2010-2019: 1,974 records; 2020 onward: 1,809 records0through 1999982000-20091,9742010-20191,8092020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19990
2000-200998
2010-20191,974
2020 onward1,809
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 2.7 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.5 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 2.9 percentReviews2.7% (102)Meta-analyses1.5% (57)Randomized controlled trials2.9% (109)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 3,794 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews1022.7%
Meta-analyses571.5%
Randomized controlled trials1092.9%

Method: PubMed query "Multilevel Analysis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.

Reading the evidence in public health and nutrition

Population and nutrition studies mostly observe what people eat, breathe or are exposed to and then look for links with health, which shows association and not proof of cause. Self-reported diet is imprecise, people who eat or live differently also differ in other ways, and effects measured across a population may not apply to one person. Check the study design, how exposure was measured, what else was accounted for and the size of the effect, not only whether it was statistically significant.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Sample size determination for mediation analysis of longitudinal data
Pan H, Liu S, Miao D, Yuan Y
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
88cc by
PMID 29580203 · DOI · PMC5870539
Individual- and community-level determinants of child immunization in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A multilevel analysis
Acharya P, Kismul H, Mapatano MA, Hatløy A
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
77cc by
PMID 30138459 · DOI · PMC6107214
Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data
Teshale AB, Tesema GA
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
66cc by
PMID 32628700 · DOI · PMC7337309
Robust Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis: Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of dependent effect sizes
Bartoš F, Maier M, Wagenmakers EJ
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2cc by
PMID 42120801 · DOI · PMC13167900

Sample size determination for mediation analysis of longitudinal data [1]

Research article Pan H, Liu S, Miao D, Yuan Y · · 2018 · cited 88 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundSample size planning for longitudinal data is crucial when designing mediation studies because sufficient statistical power is not only required in grant applications and peer-reviewed publications, but is essential to reliable research results.
Closing excerpt
A R package has been developed for the product method of sample size determination in mediation longitudinal study design.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (279 words)

BackgroundSample size planning for longitudinal data is crucial when designing mediation studies because sufficient statistical power is not only required in grant applications and peer-reviewed publications, but is essential to reliable research results. However, sample size determination is not straightforward for mediation analysis of longitudinal design.MethodsTo facilitate planning the sample size for longitudinal mediation studies with a multilevel mediation model, this article provides the sample size required to achieve 80% power by simulations under various sizes of the mediation effect, within-subject correlations and numbers of repeated measures. The sample size calculation is based on three commonly used mediation tests: Sobel's method, distribution of product method and the bootstrap method.ResultsAmong the three methods of testing the mediation effects, Sobel's method required the largest sample size to achieve 80% power. Bootstrapping and the distribution of the product method performed similarly and were more powerful than Sobel's method, as reflected by the relatively smaller sample sizes. For all three methods, the sample size required to achieve 80% power depended on the value of the ICC (i.e., within-subject correlation). A larger value of ICC typically required a larger sample size to achieve 80% power. Simulation results also illustrated the advantage of the longitudinal study design. The sample size tables for most encountered scenarios in practice have also been published for convenient use.ConclusionsExtensive simulations study showed that the distribution of the product method and bootstrapping method have superior performance to the Sobel's method, but the product method was recommended to use in practice in terms of less computation time load compared to the bootstrapping method. A R package has been developed for the product method of sample size determination in mediation longitudinal study design.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29580203 · DOI · PMC5870539

Individual- and community-level determinants of child immunization in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A multilevel analysis [2]

Research article Acharya P, Kismul H, Mapatano MA, Hatløy A · · 2018 · cited 77 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Understanding modifiable determinants of full immunization of children provide a valuable contribution to immunization programs and help reduce disease, disability, and death.
Closing excerpt
The study underlines the importance of promoting immunization programs tailored to the poor and women with little education.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (379 words)

Understanding modifiable determinants of full immunization of children provide a valuable contribution to immunization programs and help reduce disease, disability, and death. This study is aimed to assess the individual and community-level determinants of full immunization coverage among children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This study used data from the Demographic and Health Survey 2013-14 from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Data regarding total 3,366 children between 12 and 23 months of age were used in this study. Children who were immunized with one dose of BCG, three doses of polio, three doses of DPT, and a dose of measles vaccine was considered fully immunized. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the prevalence and distribution of full immunization coverage. Two-level multilevel logistic regression analysis, with individual-level (level 1) characteristics nested within community-level (level 2) characteristics, was used to assess the individual- and community-level determinants of full immunization coverage. This study found that about 45.3% [95%CI: 42.02, 48.52] of children aged 12-23 months were fully immunized in the DRC. The results confirmed immunization coverage varied and ranged between 5.8% in Mongala province to 70.6% in Nord-Kivu province. Results from multilevel analysis revealed that, four Antenatal Care (ANC) visits [AOR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.23, 2.18], institutional delivery [AOR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.52, 3.72], and Postnatal Care (PNC) service utilization [AOR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04, 1.95] were statistically significantly associated with the full immunization coverage. Similarly, children of mothers with secondary or higher education [AOR: 1.32; 95%CI: 1.00, 1.81] and from the richest wealth quintile [AOR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.18, 3.27] had significantly higher odds of being fully immunized compared to their counterparts whose mothers were relatively poorer and less educated. Among the community-level characteristics, residents of the community with a higher rate of institutional delivery [AOR: 2.36; 95%CI: 1.59, 3.51] were found to be positively associated with the full immunization coverage. Also, the random effect result found about 35% of the variation in immunization coverage among the communities was attributed to community-level factors.The Democratic Republic of Congo has a noteworthy gap in full immunization coverage. Modifiable factors-particularly health service utilization including four ANC visits, institutional delivery, and postnatal visits-had a strong positive effect on full immunization coverage. The study underlines the importance of promoting immunization programs tailored to the poor and women with little education.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30138459 · DOI · PMC6107214

Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data [3]

Research article Teshale AB, Tesema GA · · 2020 · cited 66 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundEarly or timely initiation of antenatal care and regular visits based on the schedule have a tremendous effect on both maternal and fetal health.
Closing excerpt
Therefore, taking special attention for these high-risk groups could decrease delayed first ANC booking and this intern decreases maternal and fetal health problems by identifying and intervene early.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (347 words)

BackgroundEarly or timely initiation of antenatal care and regular visits based on the schedule have a tremendous effect on both maternal and fetal health. Despite the paramount benefits of early initiation of ANC within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, women still do not have adequate and equal access to high-quality early antenatal care.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence and factors associated with delayed first ANC booking in Ethiopia.MethodA secondary data analysis was conducted using the 2016 Ethiopian demographic and health survey data. All reproductive age women who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey and who had ANC visit for their last child were included in this study. The total weighted sample size analyzed was 4,741. Due to the hierarchical nature of the EDHS data, Multi-level logistic regression model was used to identify the individual and community level factors associated with delayed first ANC booking.ResultIn this study, the prevalence of delayed first ANC booking was 67.31% [95% CI: 65.96% to 68.63%]. Women with secondary and higher education [Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR) = 0.78; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.99] and [AOR = 0.61; 95%CI: 0.44, 0.83] respectively had lower odds of delayed first ANC booking. But woman who were multiparous and grand multiparous [AOR = 1.21; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.45] and [AOR = 1.50; 95%CI: 1.16, 1.93] respectively, women with the last pregnancy wanted no more [AOR = 1.52; 95%CI: 1.10, 2.09], a woman who was living in the rural area [AOR = 1.66; 95%CI: 1.25, 2.21], and a woman who was living in large central regions and small peripheral regions [AOR = 2.76; 95%CI: 2.20, 3.47] and [AOR = 2.70; 95%CI: 2.12, 3.45] respectively had higher odds of delayed first ANC booking.ConclusionDespite the documented benefits of early antenatal care initiation, late ANC booking is still predominant in Ethiopia as highlighted by this study. Maternal education, parity, wanted the last child, residence and region were significantly associated with delayed first ANC booking. Therefore, taking special attention for these high-risk groups could decrease delayed first ANC booking and this intern decreases maternal and fetal health problems by identifying and intervene early.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32628700 · DOI · PMC7337309

Robust Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis: Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of dependent effect sizes [4]

Research article Bartoš F, Maier M, Wagenmakers EJ · · 2026 · cited 2 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Meta-analyses often include multiple dependent effect sizes, yet current methods typically neglect the resulting within-study dependencies or fail to address model uncertainty and publication bias adequately.
Closing excerpt
The approach is implemented in the RoBMA R package and JASP.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (88 words)

Meta-analyses often include multiple dependent effect sizes, yet current methods typically neglect the resulting within-study dependencies or fail to address model uncertainty and publication bias adequately. We extend robust Bayesian meta-analysis (RoBMA) to a multilevel framework, simultaneously handling within-study dependencies, model uncertainty, heterogeneity, moderators, and publication bias. Specifically, the three-level RoBMA integrates approximate Bayesian selection models with PET-PEESE adjustments within a hierarchical Bayesian setting. We illustrate the methodology through empirical examples and demonstrate its performance via simulations. The approach is implemented in the RoBMA R package and JASP.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42120801 · DOI · PMC13167900

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article A practical guide to multilevel modeling [5]
    Peugh JL · J Sch Psychol · 2010 · cited 531 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling [6]
    Mathieu JE, Aguinis H, Culpepper SA, Chen G · J Appl Psychol · 2012 · cited 132 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations [7]
    McNeish D, Kelley K · Psychol Methods · 2019 · cited 119 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Multilevel multiple imputation: A review and evaluation of joint modeling and chained equations imputation [8]
    Enders CK, Mistler SA, Keller BT · Psychol Methods · 2016 · cited 93 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The application of meta-analytic (multi-level) models with multiple random effects: A systematic review [9]
    Fernández-Castilla B, Jamshidi L, Declercq L, Beretvas SN, Onghena P, Van den Noortgate W · Behav Res Methods · 2020 · cited 82 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: power, sample size, and resource considerations [10]
    Dziak JJ, Nahum-Shani I, Collins LM · Psychol Methods · 2012 · cited 74 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Pan H, Liu S, Miao D, Yuan Y. Sample size determination for mediation analysis of longitudinal data. . 2018. PMID 29580203 · DOI · PMC5870539
  2. Acharya P, Kismul H, Mapatano MA, Hatløy A. Individual- and community-level determinants of child immunization in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A multilevel analysis. . 2018. PMID 30138459 · DOI · PMC6107214
  3. Teshale AB, Tesema GA. Prevalence and associated factors of delayed first antenatal care booking among reproductive age women in Ethiopia; a multilevel analysis of EDHS 2016 data. . 2020. PMID 32628700 · DOI · PMC7337309
  4. Bartoš F, Maier M, Wagenmakers EJ. Robust Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis: Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of dependent effect sizes. . 2026. PMID 42120801 · DOI · PMC13167900
  5. Peugh JL. A practical guide to multilevel modeling. J Sch Psychol. 2010. PMID 20006989 · DOI
  6. Mathieu JE, Aguinis H, Culpepper SA, Chen G. Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. J Appl Psychol. 2012. PMID 22582726 · DOI
  7. McNeish D, Kelley K. Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2019. PMID 29863377 · DOI
  8. Enders CK, Mistler SA, Keller BT. Multilevel multiple imputation: A review and evaluation of joint modeling and chained equations imputation. Psychol Methods. 2016. PMID 26690775 · DOI
  9. Fernández-Castilla B, Jamshidi L, Declercq L, Beretvas SN, Onghena P, Van den Noortgate W. The application of meta-analytic (multi-level) models with multiple random effects: A systematic review. Behav Res Methods. 2020. PMID 32162276 · DOI
  10. Dziak JJ, Nahum-Shani I, Collins LM. Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: power, sample size, and resource considerations. Psychol Methods. 2012. PMID 22309956 · DOI · PMC3351535

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Discriminant AnalysisClinical Research
  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research
  • Spatial AnalysisClinical Research
  • Life TablesClinical Research

All 114 articles in Public Health and Nutrition →

At a glance

3,794
PubMed records on this heading
48%
published since 2020
102
review articles
109
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-31; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Discriminant AnalysisClinical Research
  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research
  • Spatial AnalysisClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support