Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed pediatric orthopaedic literature

Inaccurate Citations Are Prevalent Within Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

Purpose

To evaluate the peer-reviewed orthopaedic sports medicine literature for reference errors within 2 high-impact journals.

Methods

In total, 769 references with 1,082 in-line citations were assessed from 20 randomly selected peer-reviewed articles published in 2 high-impact orthopaedic sports medicine journals, Arthroscopy and the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Full-text copies of references were obtained through online literature subscription databases. Two investigators evaluated each citation for agreement between the reference's study design, methods, data, discussion, and conclusion with the citing authors' claims. Error rates, interobserver agreement, and association between error rates and journal demographics were assessed.

Results

Cohen's κ coefficient representing interobserver agreement was 0.61. The mean citation error rate across 20 articles from 2 orthopaedic sports medicine journals was 6.6%. The most common error was failure to support the authors' assertions within the citing article, accounting for 32% of errors. There was no significant association between error rate and journal impact factor, number of cited references or total references, ratio of in-line citations to cited references (citation ratio), and number of authors. There was no significant relationship between error rate and journal, study type, and level of evidence.

Conclusions

Inaccurate claims and citations are common within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, occurring in every reviewed article and 6.6% of all in-line citations. Failure to support the assertions of the article in which a reference is cited is a common error. Authors should take care to rigorously assess references with particular attention to accurate citation of primary sources.

Clinical Relevance

This study highlights the prevalence of citation errors within a random sampling of high-level orthopaedic sports medicine articles. Given science is cumulative, these errors perpetuate inaccuracies and are at odds with evidence-based practice.

Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications

BACKGROUND

Abstracts should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.

METHODS

We selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. Abstracts were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.

RESULTS

In 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.

Quotation errors related to the wound management of open lower limb fractures (WOLLF) randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

We assessed the accuracy of quotations in the published literature of the Wound Management of Open Lower Limb Fractures (WOLLF) Randomized Clinical Trial.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify all citations of WOLLF from 2018 to 2021. Duplicate papers, non-English language papers, textbooks, technical tip videos, Ph.D. theses, and other grey literature were excluded from analysis. Eligible publications had their full text assessed by 2 independent reviewers who used a validated framework of error classification.

RESULTS

We identified 62 original papers that met our eligibility criteria and referenced WOLLF. Of the 62 papers, 12 contained a quotation error (12/62, 19%). Errors were classified into major and minor. There were 7 major errors and 5 minor errors. The majority of quotation errors (7/12, 58%) occurred due to multi-referencing, where groups of references were used to support single assertions. There was substantial agreement between the two independent reviewers as determined by a Kappa coefficient of 0.761.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated a 19% quotation error rate in the literature regarding WOLLF. The majority were due to multi-referencing. We suggest that both authors and reviewers carefully check the source literature of key references.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process

BACKGROUND

Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy.

METHODS

A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population.

RESULTS

A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Citing literature in biomedical research

Even though it is considered to be the least demanding part while writing a paper, significant attention should be devoted to citing literature. By using citation, original authors are acknowledged, readers are directed to the used material, validity of the used sources is confirmed, evidence of current research is provided, and plagiarism is avoided. Numerous shortcomings in the citation of scientific literature have been recognized in recent times. Results of a recent meta-analysis showed that 25.4% of published scientific papers consisted of citation errors. The academic community encounters the problems of incorrect citations on a daily basis, and assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Most researchers are aware of the presence of various citation errors, but few respect their presence, i.e., the consequences of the identified problem. Assessing the presence and type of inaccurate citations in the biomedical scientific literature, as well as identifying factors associated with their presence, is important for preserving the integrity of the academic community. To improve citation accuracy in the biomedical scientific literature, recommendations for authors, mentors, readers and editors should be implemented in academic environment. These recommendations would encourage good citation practice, prevent errors and promote progress throughout the scientific community.

Quotation Accuracy of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols on Acupuncture

Currently, published systematic review protocols (SR protocols) have increasingly become a new trend in fields such as acupuncture and are therefore a new source of quotations in these fields. Systematic reviews are considered the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid as they embody comprehensive literature searching. Quotations are key elements to achieve this goal as they can support the assertions of the original authors, but the ‘misquotation’ exists, too, and they can be misleading to the reader. The aim of this study was to examine the quotation accuracy of SR protocols in a meta-analysis on acupuncture research. We searched SCOPUS through 31 December, 2020, and each protocol and its citations were analyzed and classified as correct or incorrect. We used descriptive statistics to report the quotation errors and characteristics of the included protocols. The results showed 248 SR protocols, where 124 protocols received quotations and 38 quotations (31.4%) were erroneous. Only 11 (4.4%) of the published SRs and SR protocols had been published previously. Furthermore, the scientific journal in which the most SR protocols were published was Medicine (193; 77.8%), followed by BMJ Open (39; 15.7%). Authors from China (86.5%) were the most productive in publishing SRs and SR protocols. Finally, we concluded that the number of SR protocols and meta-analyses published in scientific journals and indexed by databases exceeds the publication capacity of the SRs associated with them, generating scientific literature that does not make any novel contribution to knowledge.

Quotation errors related to the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of quotations of the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study in the published literature.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from March 2015 to November 2019 to identify all papers that reference ProFHER since its publication. Full text articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using a validated framework of assessing quotation errors. A kappa co-efficient was calculated to assess interobserver reliability of the reviewers.

RESULTS

There were 260 individual ProFHER quoted references within the 138 included articles. We identified 35/260 quotation errors (13%). Of these, 10/35 (29%) were major quotation errors and 25/35 (71%) minor quotation errors. There was substantial interobserver agreement when errors were classified. Of the 10 major errors, six quotations were not substantiated by the results of ProFHER and three were unrelated to ProFHER. One paper contained a quotation error that contradicted the results of ProFHER. Of the 25 minor errors, 19 oversimplified or generalised the conclusions of ProFHER and six contained numerical or grammatical errors.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated substantial inaccuracies in quotations of the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization study. Vigilance is recommended when quoting the literature and reviewing submitted papers in order to prevent the perpetuation of misquoted data.

Quotation Errors in High-Impact-Factor Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Journals

Inappropriate referencing of the existing literature has the potential to propagate false information. Quotation errors are defined as citations in which the referenced article fails to substantiate the authors' claims. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of quotation errors in high-impact general orthopaedic and sports medicine journals and to determine whether there are article or journal-related factors that are related to the rate of inaccuracies.

METHODS

A total of 250 citations from the 5 orthopaedic and sports medicine journals with the highest impact factors in 2019 (per Journal Citation Reports) were chosen using a random sequence generator. Reviewers rated the chosen citations by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and conclusions of the referenced source to determine whether quotation errors were present. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for article- and journal-related factors related to the rate of quotation errors.

RESULTS

The overall quotation error rate was 13.6%. A total of 2.8% of the claims were completely unsubstantiated. The number of quotation errors did not significantly differ between the included journals. Single citations were significantly more likely than string citations to result in citations that could not be fully substantiated (χ2 = 4.57; odds ratio = 2.22; 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 4.66; p = 0.03). No relationship was found between the rate of quotation errors and the total number of citations in the article, study type, or the graded level of evidence of the article.

CONCLUSIONS

Quotation errors in high-impact factor orthopaedic and sports medicine journals are common. This is particularly important given the higher likelihood that studies in these journals are cited elsewhere, thus propagating the inaccuracies. Efforts from both authors and journals are needed to reduce quotation errors in the orthopaedic literature.

Quotation errors related to the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial paper

Quotation error is an inaccuracy in the assertions made by authors when referencing another's work. This study aimed to assess the quotation errors in articles referencing the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT). A literature search was performed to identify all citations of DRAFFT from 2014 to 2020. The relevant publications were assessed by two reviewers using a validated framework of error classification. There were 83 articles containing references to DRAFFT. There was substantial agreement between the two reviewers (Kappa coefficient 0.66). We found 22/83 (28%) of articles contained an error, with one article containing two errors. There were 12 major errors, which were not substantiated by, were unrelated to or contradicted the findings of DRAFFT, and 11 minor errors, including numerical inaccuracies, oversimplification or generalization. This study highlights that a significant number of articles inaccurately quote DRAFFT. Authors and journals should consider checking the accuracy of key referenced statements.

How accurate is the neurosurgery literature? A review of references

BACKGROUND

The reference list is an important part of academic manuscripts. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of neurosurgery.

METHODS

This study examines four major peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals, chosen based on their clinical impact factor: Neurosurgery, J Neurosurg, World Neurosurg, and Acta Neurochir. For each of the four journals, five articles from each of the journal's 12 issues published in 2019 were randomly selected using an online generator. This resulted in a total of 240 articles, 60 from each journal. Additionally, from each article's list of references, one reference was again randomly selected and checked for a citation or quotation error. The chi-square test was used to analyze the association between the occurrence of citation and quotation errors and the presence of hypothesized risk factors that could impact reference accuracy.

RESULTS

62.1% of articles had a minor citation error, 8.33% had a major citation error, 12.1% had a minor quotation error, and 5.8% of articles had a major quotation error. Overall, Acta Neurochir presented with the fewest quotation errors compared with the other journals evaluated. The only association between the frequency of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes was with the length of the bibliography. Surprisingly, this correlation indicated that the articles with longer reference lists had fewer citation errors (p < 0.01). Statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the journals of publication (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in neurosurgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this analysis illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Quotation errors in general science journals

Due to the incremental nature of scientific discovery, scientific writing requires extensive referencing to the writings of others. The accuracy of this referencing is vital, yet errors do occur. These errors are called ‘quotation errors’. This paper presents the first assessment of quotation errors in high-impact general science journals. A total of 250 random citations were examined. The propositions being cited were compared with the referenced materials to verify whether the propositions could be substantiated by those materials. The study found a total error rate of 25%. This result tracks well with error rates found in similar studies in other academic fields. Additionally, several suggestions are offered that may help to decrease these errors and make similar studies more feasible in the future.

Reference accuracy in spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

The references list is an important part of a scientific article that serves to confirm the accuracy of the authors' statements. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of spine surgery.

METHODS

Four major peer-reviewed spine surgery journals were chosen for this study based on their subspecialty clinical impact factors. Sixty articles per journal were selected from 12 issues each of The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and 40 articles were selected from 8 issues of Global Spine Journal, for a total of 220 articles. All the articles were published in 2019 and were selected using computer-generated numbers. From the references list of each article, one reference was again selected by using a computer-generated number and then checked for citation or quotation errors.

RESULTS

The results indicate that 84.1% of articles have a minor citation error, 4.5% of articles have a major citation error, 9.5% of articles have a minor quotation error, and 9.1% of articles have a major quotation error. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the fewest citation errors compared with the other journals evaluated in this study. Using chi-square analysis, no association was determined between the occurrence of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes. Still, statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the spine journals tested.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in spine surgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this study illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Importance, Errors, and Patterns of Quotations to Psychiatric Original Articles

Introduction A substantial rate of quotation errors has been reported in medical journal publications: about 25% of all quotations are wrong. It is, however, entirely unclear how important quotation errors are for the message of quoting articles.

Methods This is a case study in form of a retrospective quotation analysis of a cohort of 72 psychiatric original articles (index articles) from 5 German-language general psychiatric journals. Main outcomes were importance and accuracy of quotations from the 2 calendar years following the publication of index articles.

Results Fifty-one index articles were quoted 235 times in 109 quoting articles. Almost all quotations were of medium (76% [95% CI: 70%; 81%]) or high (20% [15%, 25%]) importance for the message of the quoting paper. Regarding quotation accuracy, 44 quotations (19% [14%; 24%]) were rated as minor, and 51 (22% [17%; 27%]) as major errors. In multivariable analyses, no statistically significant and practically relevant factors associated with quotation inaccuracy emerged, such as self-quotation, impact factor of the quoting journal, or importance. Among quoting articles, 7 (6% [3%; 13%]) showed a pattern of predominantly quoting index articles from the time span relevant to the calculation of the impact factor.

Discussion Quotations are important for the message of the quoting paper. Therefore, quotation errors may be detrimental to scientific reasoning and may undermine public trust in medical science. The present investigation is a case study, and its results are exploratory. While it is plausible that the findings translate into other environments, independent replication is needed.

Normalization of Deviation: Quotation Error in Human Factors

Objective The objective of this paper is to examine quotation error in human factors. Background Science progresses through building on the work of previous research. This requires accurate quotation. Quotation error has a number of adverse consequences: loss of credibility, loss of confidence in the journal, and a flawed basis for academic debate and scientific progress. Quotation error has been observed in a number of domains, including marine biology and medicine, but there has been little or no previous study of this form of error in human factors, a domain that specializes in the causes and management of error. Methods A study was conducted examining quotation accuracy of 187 extracts from 118 published articles that cited a control article (Vaughan's 1996 book: The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA). Results Of extracts studied, 12.8% ( n = 24) were classed as inaccurate, with 87.2% ( n = 163) being classed as accurate. A second dimension of agreement was examined with 96.3% ( n = 180) agreeing with the control article and only 3.7% ( n = 7) disagreeing. The categories of accuracy and agreement form a two by two matrix. Conclusion Rather than simply blaming individuals for quotation error, systemic factors should also be considered. Vaughan's theory, normalization of deviance, is one systemic theory that can account for quotation error. Application Quotation error is occurring in human factors and should receive more attention. According to Vaughan's theory, the normal everyday systems that promote scholarship may also allow mistakes, mishaps, and quotation error to occur.

Reference Errors in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Literature

Objective Proper use of citation and quotation is crucial to the integrity of the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of quotation and citation errors in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) journals and how they have changed over time. Study Design Literature review. Methods Fifty references were randomly selected from the first published issue of 2017 for 8 leading OHNS journals. These were analyzed for errors in citation (data elements by which the article is referenced) and quotation (factual inaccuracies of the reference). Citation errors were categorized as major, intermediate, or minor. Quotation errors were categorized as major or minor. Results were compared with data from 1997 articles. Results Citation errors occurred in 17% of all references studied, with 34% classified as major. Quotation errors occurred in 9%, with 69% classified as major. There was no association between journal impact factor and total number of errors ( r = -0.33, P = .42). This compares with a 37% citation error rate (32% major) and 17% quotation error rate (65% major) from 1997. Conclusion Citation and quotation errors are still prevalent in the OHNS literature albeit decreased from previously reported data. Improvement in citation errors may be due to technological improvements in reference management. However, it is the continued responsibility of the authors, reviewers, and editors to further reduce error rates to maintain the integrity of our publications.

Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate

Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or "facts," are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature. These reviews noted that the original studies were dissimilar and only began to compare the methods of the original studies. The aim of this review is to examine the methods of the original studies and provide a more specific rate of incorrectly cited assertions, or quotation errors, in original research articles published in medical journals. Additionally, the estimate of quotation errors calculated here is based on the ratio of quotation errors to quotations examined (a percent) rather than the more prevalent and weighted metric of quotation errors to the references selected. Overall, this resulted in a lower estimate of the quotation error rate in original medical research articles. A total of 15 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the primary quantitative analysis. Quotation errors were divided into two categories: content ("factual") or source (improper indirect citation) errors. Content errors were further subdivided into major and minor errors depending on the degree that the assertion differed from the original source. The rate of quotation errors recalculated here is 14.5% (10.5% to 18.6% at a 95% confidence interval). These content errors are predominantly, 64.8% (56.1% to 73.5% at a 95% confidence interval), major errors or cited assertions in which the referenced source either fails to substantiate, is unrelated to, or contradicts the assertion. Minor errors, which are an oversimplification, overgeneralization, or trivial inaccuracies, are 35.2% (26.5% to 43.9% at a 95% confidence interval). Additionally, improper secondary (or indirect) citations, which are distinguished from calculations of quotation accuracy, occur at a rate of 10.4% (3.4% to 17.5% at a 95% confidence interval).

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either “systematic” or “narrative”. Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

A modern, simplified citation style and student response

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to see if there is a need for and an interest in a modernized and simplified citation style (SCS).

Design/methodology/approach

– Students in two sections of English 1010 were given a brief training in SCS and asked to use SCS and MLA citation styles, respectively, in their next two assignments. Students were surveyed afterwards about their preferences.

Findings

– Students preferred using the presented SCS over MLA by a large margin. This was not a surprise. Citation styles are difficult to master.

Research limitations/implications

– This is a small qualitative study, and the result are not generalizable to a larger population, but the implications suggest that a larger study is warranted.

Practical implications

– This paper shows that there is a need for a more modern citation style, one that embraces technology and moves forward from the print bibliographic tradition.

Originality/value

– There are many articles in the literature about citations, but few address modernizing and simplifying citation styles, and none make a proposal for such a style.

Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.

Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. Quotations and references are an indispensable element of scientific communication. They should support what authors claim or provide important background information for readers. Studies indicate, however, that quotations not serving their purpose-quotation errors-may be prevalent. Methods. We carried out a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of quotation errors, taking account of differences between studies in error ascertainment. Results. Out of 559 studies screened we included 28 in the main analysis, and estimated major, minor and total quotation error rates of 11,9%, 95% CI [8.4, 16.6] 11.5% [8.3, 15.7], and 25.4% [19.5, 32.4]. While heterogeneity was substantial, even the lowest estimate of total quotation errors was considerable (6.7%). Indirect references accounted for less than one sixth of all quotation problems. The findings remained robust in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses (including risk of bias analysis) and in meta-regression. There was no indication of publication bias. Conclusions. Readers of medical journal articles should be aware of the fact that quotation errors are common. Measures against quotation errors include spot checks by editors and reviewers, correct placement of citations in the text, and declarations by authors that they have checked cited material. Future research should elucidate if and to what degree quotation errors are detrimental to scientific progress.

The qualitative problem of major quotation errors, as illustrated by 10 different examples in the headache literature

There are two types of errors when references are used in the scientific literature: citation errors and quotation errors, and these errors have in reviews mainly been evaluated quantitatively. Quotation errors are the major problem, and 1 review reported 6% major quotation errors. The objective of this listing of quotation errors is to illustrate by qualitative analysis of different types of 10 major quotation errors how and possibly why authors misquote references. The author selected for review the first 10 different consecutive major quotation errors encountered from his reading of the headache literature. The characteristics of the 10 quotation errors ranged considerably. Thus, in a review of migraine therapy in a very prestigious medical journal, the superiority of a new treatment (sumatriptan) vs an old treatment (aspirin plus metoclopramide) was claimed despite no significant difference for the primary efficacy measure in the trial. One author, in a scientific debate, referred to the lack of dilation of the middle meningeal artery in spontaneous migraine despite the fact that only 1 migraine attack was studied. The possibility for creative major quotation errors in the medical literature is most likely infinite. Qualitative evaluations, as the present, of major quotation errors will hopefully result in more general awareness of quotation problems in the medical literature. Even if the final responsibility for correct use of quotations is with the authors, the referees, the experts with the knowledge needed to spot quotation errors, should be more involved in ensuring correct and fair use of references. Finally, this paper suggests that major misleading quotations, if pointed out by readers of the journal, should, as a rule, be corrected by way of an erratum statement.

Accuracy of citation and quotation in foot and ankle surgery journals

BACKGROUND

A recent review of technical editing of research suggests that over one third of references cited in articles in medical journals have some inaccuracies and one fifth of quotations to references in these articles are not accurate.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-nine citation references and 408 quotes from 25 articles published in 5 orthopaedic journals were randomly selected to determine referencing accuracy. The presence of citation errors was examined by 1 of the authors while the presence of quotation errors was determined by 2 of the authors. Full copies of articles as well as the references were obtained to compare the accuracies.

RESULTS

The total citation error rate was 41% (103 out of 249 references), and the total quotation error rate was 20% (80 out of 408 quotes) for the 5 orthopaedic journals.

CONCLUSION

Citation and quotation errors were still relatively common in orthopaedic journals. While we did not identify any factors associated with citation and quotation errors, the use of technical editing may reduce the amount of citation errors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Readers and authors should be aware that many citations of studies are inaccurate and one should review the original source if it is to be used in another publication or to guide clinical treatment.

Implant removal in children

PURPOSE

Implant removal in children is still a standard procedure. Implants may disturb function, and some theoretical long-term risks like growth disturbance, foreign body reaction, chronic infection and corrosion are used as arguments for removal. Implant migration or interference with any other orthopaedic treatment over the later course of life is also a matter of debate. On the other hand, the difficulty in removing single implants as well as possible perioperative complications has induced discussion about the retention of implants in childhood.

METHODS

The current procedures are exposed and the available literature on implant removal in children reviewed.

RESULTS

Actually, a clear recommendation does not exist. The current line of action still includes routine removal, as it is preferred by some authors, whereas others argue for a selective procedure. K-wires as well as intramedullary nails are usually removed because the ends may interfere with the surrounding tissue. Screws and plates can be retained if there are no local problems. The removal of external fixators is non-controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits have to outweigh the risks and complications in the individual case and the procedure should not require a more extensive procedure than insertion. It has to be an individual decision in view of the lack of evidence to support routine removal as well as to refute it.

Predictors of the accuracy of quotation of references in peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature in relation to publications on the scaphoid

Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading information, which might affect the management of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid. We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded. Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological, case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation inaccuracy rate.

We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

Objectives Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. Design The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. Results The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. Conclusions The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.