Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

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 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.

No abstract