Scholarlink

Background <p>Quotations are crucial to science but have been shown to be often inaccurate. Quotation errors, that is, a reference not supporting the authors’ claim, may still be a significant issue in scientific medical writing. This study aimed to examine the quotation error rate and trends over time in the medical literature.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and reference lists for quotation error studies in medicine and without date or language restrictions identified 46 studies analyzing 32,000 quotations/references. Literature search, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two raters. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to analyze error rates and trends (protocol pre-registered on OSF).</p> Results <p>16.9% (95% CI: 14.1%-20.0%) of quotations were incorrect, with approximately half classified as major errors (8.0% [95% CI: 6.4%-10.0%]). Heterogeneity was high, and Egger’s test for small study effects remained negative throughout. Meta-regression showed no significant improvement in quotation accuracy over recent years (slope: -0.002 [95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02], <i>p</i> = 0.85). Neither risk of bias, nor the number of references were statistically significantly associated with total error rate, but journal impact factor was: Spearman’s ρ = –0.253 (<i>p</i> = 0.043, binomial test, <i>N</i> = 25).</p> Conclusions <p>Quotation errors remain a problem in the medical literature, with no improvement over time. Addressing this issue requires concerted efforts to improve scholarly practices and editorial processes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Systematic review and meta-analysis of quotation inaccuracy in medicine

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月23日

查看全文
  • Christopher Baethge,
  • Hannah Jergas

摘要

Background

Quotations are crucial to science but have been shown to be often inaccurate. Quotation errors, that is, a reference not supporting the authors’ claim, may still be a significant issue in scientific medical writing. This study aimed to examine the quotation error rate and trends over time in the medical literature.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and reference lists for quotation error studies in medicine and without date or language restrictions identified 46 studies analyzing 32,000 quotations/references. Literature search, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two raters. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to analyze error rates and trends (protocol pre-registered on OSF).

Results

16.9% (95% CI: 14.1%-20.0%) of quotations were incorrect, with approximately half classified as major errors (8.0% [95% CI: 6.4%-10.0%]). Heterogeneity was high, and Egger’s test for small study effects remained negative throughout. Meta-regression showed no significant improvement in quotation accuracy over recent years (slope: -0.002 [95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02], p = 0.85). Neither risk of bias, nor the number of references were statistically significantly associated with total error rate, but journal impact factor was: Spearman’s ρ = –0.253 (p = 0.043, binomial test, N = 25).

Conclusions

Quotation errors remain a problem in the medical literature, with no improvement over time. Addressing this issue requires concerted efforts to improve scholarly practices and editorial processes.