Quotation errors related to the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial paper

Abstract

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.

Inaccurate Citations Are Prevalent Within Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

“…Our findings are consistent with previous investigations over the past decade within the orthopaedic trauma, hand, sports, foot and ankle, and pediatric specific literature, with identified quotation errors rates ranging from 7.6% to 38%. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 More broadly within the biomedical literature, others have identified citation inaccuracy as a problem, including reference quotation errors within anatomy, neurosurgical spine, otolaryngology, and burn journals. Within this body of literature, quotation error rates have been found to range from 13.7% to 19%.…”

“…Prior evaluations of the orthopaedic peer-reviewed literature suggest citation error rates of 7.6% to 38%. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 However, relatively little attention has been paid to citation errors in sports medicine journals specifically. Additionally, the methodology of reference review employed in the existing literature often relies on a subsample of references.…”