Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jergas H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4627914 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is the most common cardiovascular diagnostic test. Physicians' skill in ECG interpretation is incompletely understood.ObjectivesTo identify and summarize published research on the accuracy of physicians' ECG interpretations.Data sourcesA search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL (Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Web of Science was conducted for articles published from database inception to February 21, 2020.Study selectionOf 1138 articles initially identified, 78 studies that assessed the accuracy of physicians' or medical students' ECG interpretations in a test setting were selected.Data extraction and synthesisData on study purpose, participants, assessment features, and outcomes were abstracted, and methodological quality was appraised with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of ECG interpretation.ResultsOf 1138 studies initially identified, 78 assessed the accuracy of ECG interpretation. Across all training levels, the median accuracy was 54% (interquartile range [IQR], 40%-66%; n = 62 studies) on pretraining assessments and 67% (IQR, 55%-77%; n = 47 studies) on posttraining assessments. Accuracy varied widely across studies. The pooled accuracy for pretraining assessments was 42.0% (95% CI, 34.3%-49.6%; n = 24 studies; I2 = 99%) for medical students, 55.8% (95% CI, 48.1%-63.6%; n = 37 studies; I2 = 96%) for residents, 68.5% (95% CI, 57.6%-79.5%; n = 10 studies; I2 = 86%) for practicing physicians, and 74.9% (95% CI, 63.2%-86.7%; n = 8 studies; I2 = 22%) for cardiologists.Conclusions and relevancePhysicians at all training levels had deficiencies in ECG interpretation, even after educational interventions. Improved education across the practice continuum appears warranted. Wide variation in outcomes could reflect real differences in training or skill or differences in assessment design.

Project description:BackgroundMild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the stage between the expected cognitive decline of normal aging and the more serious decline of dementia. Previous studies have shown that regular exercise can improve cognition and physical performance in older adults. Walking is a low-technology and low-cost exercise that has been proven to improve cognition and mobility in healthy elderly individuals. However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has explored whether walking can improve cognitive function in older adults with MCI. This study aimed to explore the effects of walking interventions on cognitive functions in individuals with MCI.MethodsIn accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, Airiti Library, and the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan were searched from inception to July 2023. Independent reviewers selected randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared the effects of walking with no intervention or other exercises in individuals with MCI. The primary outcomes were cognitive functions, and the secondary outcome was walking endurance. Three reviewers independently conducted data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included in this review. The quality of evidence in these studies was rated as good to excellent. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the individuals with MCI had no significant improvement in cognitive function but had significant improvement in the 6-min walk test (Mean Difference=23.70, p=0.008) after walking interventions compared to no intervention or other exercises.ConclusionWalking intervention has no significant improvement on cognitive functions in older adults with MCI. However, walking induces beneficial effects on aerobic capacity.Trial registrationThis systematic review has the registration number CRD42021283753 on PROSPERO.

Project description:Importance:Citation analysis is a bibliometric method that uses citation rates to evaluate research performance. This type of analysis can identify the articles that have shaped the modern history of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Objectives:To identify and characterize top-cited OBGYN articles in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science's Science Citation Index Expanded and to compare top-cited OBGYN articles published in specialty OBGYN journals with those published in nonspecialty journals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles that were indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1980 to 2018. The Science Citation Index Expanded was queried using search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's 2018 certifying examination topics list. The top 100 articles from all journals and the top 100 articles from OBGYN journals were evaluated for specific characteristics. Data were analyzed in March 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The articles were characterized by citation number, publication year, topic, study design, and authorship. After excluding articles that featured on both lists, top-cited articles were compared. Results:The query identified 3?767?874 articles, of which 278?846 (7.4%) were published in OBGYN journals. The top-cited article was published by Rossouw and colleagues in JAMA (2002). Top-cited articles published in nonspecialty journals were more frequently cited than those in OBGYN journals (median [interquartile range], 1738 [1490-2077] citations vs 666 [580-843] citations, respectively; P?<?.001) and were more likely to be randomized trials (25.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; difference, 22.8%; 95% CI, 13.5%-32.2%; P?<?.001). Whereas articles from nonspecialty journals focused on broad topics like osteoporosis, articles from OBGYN journal focused on topics like preeclampsia and endometriosis. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found substantial differences between top-cited OBGYN articles published in nonspecialty vs OBGYN journals. These differences may reflect the different goals of the journals, which work together to ensure optimal dissemination of impactful articles.

Dataset Information

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets