Reference accuracy in spine surgery

Inaccurate Citations Are Prevalent Within Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

Purpose

To evaluate the peer-reviewed orthopaedic sports medicine literature for reference errors within 2 high-impact journals.

Methods

In total, 769 references with 1,082 in-line citations were assessed from 20 randomly selected peer-reviewed articles published in 2 high-impact orthopaedic sports medicine journals, Arthroscopy and the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Full-text copies of references were obtained through online literature subscription databases. Two investigators evaluated each citation for agreement between the reference's study design, methods, data, discussion, and conclusion with the citing authors' claims. Error rates, interobserver agreement, and association between error rates and journal demographics were assessed.

Results

Cohen's κ coefficient representing interobserver agreement was 0.61. The mean citation error rate across 20 articles from 2 orthopaedic sports medicine journals was 6.6%. The most common error was failure to support the authors' assertions within the citing article, accounting for 32% of errors. There was no significant association between error rate and journal impact factor, number of cited references or total references, ratio of in-line citations to cited references (citation ratio), and number of authors. There was no significant relationship between error rate and journal, study type, and level of evidence.

Conclusions

Inaccurate claims and citations are common within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, occurring in every reviewed article and 6.6% of all in-line citations. Failure to support the assertions of the article in which a reference is cited is a common error. Authors should take care to rigorously assess references with particular attention to accurate citation of primary sources.

Clinical Relevance

This study highlights the prevalence of citation errors within a random sampling of high-level orthopaedic sports medicine articles. Given science is cumulative, these errors perpetuate inaccuracies and are at odds with evidence-based practice.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process

BACKGROUND

Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy.

METHODS

A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population.

RESULTS

A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Quotation Errors in High-Impact-Factor Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Journals

Inappropriate referencing of the existing literature has the potential to propagate false information. Quotation errors are defined as citations in which the referenced article fails to substantiate the authors' claims. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of quotation errors in high-impact general orthopaedic and sports medicine journals and to determine whether there are article or journal-related factors that are related to the rate of inaccuracies.

METHODS

A total of 250 citations from the 5 orthopaedic and sports medicine journals with the highest impact factors in 2019 (per Journal Citation Reports) were chosen using a random sequence generator. Reviewers rated the chosen citations by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and conclusions of the referenced source to determine whether quotation errors were present. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for article- and journal-related factors related to the rate of quotation errors.

RESULTS

The overall quotation error rate was 13.6%. A total of 2.8% of the claims were completely unsubstantiated. The number of quotation errors did not significantly differ between the included journals. Single citations were significantly more likely than string citations to result in citations that could not be fully substantiated (χ2 = 4.57; odds ratio = 2.22; 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 4.66; p = 0.03). No relationship was found between the rate of quotation errors and the total number of citations in the article, study type, or the graded level of evidence of the article.

CONCLUSIONS

Quotation errors in high-impact factor orthopaedic and sports medicine journals are common. This is particularly important given the higher likelihood that studies in these journals are cited elsewhere, thus propagating the inaccuracies. Efforts from both authors and journals are needed to reduce quotation errors in the orthopaedic literature.

How accurate is the neurosurgery literature? A review of references

BACKGROUND

The reference list is an important part of academic manuscripts. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of neurosurgery.

METHODS

This study examines four major peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals, chosen based on their clinical impact factor: Neurosurgery, J Neurosurg, World Neurosurg, and Acta Neurochir. For each of the four journals, five articles from each of the journal's 12 issues published in 2019 were randomly selected using an online generator. This resulted in a total of 240 articles, 60 from each journal. Additionally, from each article's list of references, one reference was again randomly selected and checked for a citation or quotation error. The chi-square test was used to analyze the association between the occurrence of citation and quotation errors and the presence of hypothesized risk factors that could impact reference accuracy.

RESULTS

62.1% of articles had a minor citation error, 8.33% had a major citation error, 12.1% had a minor quotation error, and 5.8% of articles had a major quotation error. Overall, Acta Neurochir presented with the fewest quotation errors compared with the other journals evaluated. The only association between the frequency of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes was with the length of the bibliography. Surprisingly, this correlation indicated that the articles with longer reference lists had fewer citation errors (p < 0.01). Statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the journals of publication (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in neurosurgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this analysis illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.