Quotation errors related to the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (ProFHER) study

Abstract

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.

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.…”

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

“…Another article examined quotation errors related to a specific hand-surgery-related article (Knirk and Jupiter, 1986) and found that 63 of 154 articles (41%) that referenced the original article contained at least one error (Porrino et al, 2008). A previous article from our institution (Bagga et al, 2020) assessed quotation errors related to the PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial (Rangan et al, 2015) and showed an overall error rate of 13%.…”

Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications

“…For example, misinterpretation of statistical significance in abstracts can result in overstated or unjustified conclusions. Additionally, studies have demonstrated inaccurate citation practices across various medical and surgical specialties, including different orthopaedic surgery subspecialties [10][11][12][13][14].…”