Keegan Curlewis1, Brook Leung2, Lucy Sinclair3, David Ricketts3, Benedict Rogers3. 1. Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. keegancurlewis@gmail.com. 2. Barts Heath NHS Trust, London, UK. 3. Audrey Emerton Building, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Rd, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Matthew L Costa; Juul Achten; Julie Bruce; Elizabeth Tutton; Stavros Petrou; Sarah E Lamb; Nick R Parsons Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andreas Älgå; Rawand Haweizy; Khaldoon Bashaireh; Sidney Wong; Kalle Conneryd Lundgren; Johan von Schreeb; Jonas Malmstedt Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Nathan N O'Hara; C Daniel Mullins; Gerard P Slobogean; Anthony D Harris; Dionne S Kringos; Niek S Klazinga Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-04-01