Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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).

SUBMITTER: Mogull SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5599002 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Mogull Scott A SA

PloS one 20170914 9

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 ...[more]

PMID: 28910404

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCitation counts of articles have been used to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool.ObjectivesThe aims of the study were to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores.MethodsThe Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics of each article were identified. The altmetric database was searched to identify report for each identified article. A model to assess the relationship between the number of citations and each of the key characteristics as well as altmetric scores was developed.ResultsNo correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (p=0.192), number of institutes (p=0.081), number of authors (p=0.270), females in authorship (p=0.150) or number of grants (p=0.384). The altmetric scores varied from 0 to 155, total=806, median=5.0, (IQR=20). Twitter (54%) and Mendeley (62%) were the most popular altmetric resources. No correlation was found between the number of citations and the altmetric scores (p=0.661). However, a correlation was found for articles published in 2007 and after (n=17, p=0.023). To further assess these variables, a model was developed using multivariate analysis; did not show significant differences across subgroups. The topics covered were learning and teaching professionalism, curriculum issues, professional and unprofessional behaviour.ConclusionsAltmetric scores of articles were significantly correlated with citations counts for articles published in 2007 and after. Highly cited articles were produced mainly by the USA, Canada and the UK. The study reflects the emerging role of social media in research dissemination. Future studies should investigate the specific features of highly cited articles and factors reinforcing distribution of research data among scholars and non-scholars.

Project description:PurposeTo identify and evaluate the top 50 most-cited articles pertaining to SLAP tears.MethodsThe ISI Web of Knowledge database was used to conduct a query for articles pertaining to SLAP tears. Our query was conducted in April 2020 with multiple Boolean operative combinations performed by 2 independent reviewers. Articles on the final list were further reviewed to extract the following data: manuscript title, first author, total citation count, year of publication, citation density since publication, current citation rate since 2013, journal, country of origin, and level of evidence.ResultsOur initial search yielded 2,597 articles. Within this cohort, the top 50 publications pertaining to SLAP tears were identified that met our search criteria. The top article was cited 802 times while the 50th ranked article was cited 46 times. The average number of citations per publication was 131, whereas the average citation density since year of publication was 7.3. No strong correlations were found between citation density and year published. Twelve journals published articles pertaining to SLAP tears, with Arthroscopy accounting for the greatest number (15 articles, 30%). Most articles were graded with a level of evidence (LOE) of IV (n = 24, 48%), followed by review articles without LOE (n = 8, 16%). Only 2 articles achieved an LOE of I (4%). Articles typically addressed the arthroscopic management (n = 11, 22%), whereas anatomy/classification (n =10, 20%), and outcomes (n = 9, 18%) also were reported.ConclusionsThis review provides a quantitative analysis of the most-referenced literature pertaining to SLAP tears. This body of knowledge helps surgeons search for literature regarding these injuries and identify trends regarding SLAP tear research.Clinical relevanceThis research provides practitioners with an easily accessible and comprehensive collection of the major contributions regarding SLAP tears and offers insight into future areas for research.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets