Mogull Scott A
Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 14;12(9):e0184727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184727. eCollection 2017.
Previous reviews estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of assertions cited from original research articles, or "facts," are inaccurately quoted in the medical literature. These reviews noted that the original studies were dissimilar and only began to compare the methods of the original studies. The aim of this review is to examine the methods of the original studies and provide a more specific rate of incorrectly cited assertions, or quotation errors, in original research articles published in medical journals. Additionally, the estimate of quotation errors calculated here is based on the ratio of quotation errors to quotations examined (a percent) rather than the more prevalent and weighted metric of quotation errors to the references selected. Overall, this resulted in a lower estimate of the quotation error rate in original medical research articles. A total of 15 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the primary quantitative analysis. Quotation errors were divided into two categories: content ("factual") or source (improper indirect citation) errors. Content errors were further subdivided into major and minor errors depending on the degree that the assertion differed from the original source. The rate of quotation errors recalculated here is 14.5% (10.5% to 18.6% at a 95% confidence interval). These content errors are predominantly, 64.8% (56.1% to 73.5% at a 95% confidence interval), major errors or cited assertions in which the referenced source either fails to substantiate, is unrelated to, or contradicts the assertion. Minor errors, which are an oversimplification, overgeneralization, or trivial inaccuracies, are 35.2% (26.5% to 43.9% at a 95% confidence interval). Additionally, improper secondary (or indirect) citations, which are distinguished from calculations of quotation accuracy, occur at a rate of 10.4% (3.4% to 17.5% at a 95% confidence interval).
以往的综述估计，医学文献中约20%至25%引用自原创研究文章的论断（即“事实”）被错误引用。这些综述指出，原始研究各不相同，且才刚刚开始比较原始研究的方法。本综述的目的是研究原始研究的方法，并给出医学期刊发表的原创研究文章中错误引用论断（即引用错误）的更具体比例。此外，此处计算的引用错误估计值是基于引用错误与所审查引用的比例（百分比），而非引用错误与所选参考文献这一更为普遍且加权的指标。总体而言，这使得对原始医学研究文章中引用错误率的估计更低。共有15项研究符合纳入主要定量分析的标准。引用错误分为两类：内容（“事实性”）错误或来源（不当间接引用）错误。内容错误根据论断与原始来源的差异程度进一步细分为重大错误和微小错误。此处重新计算的引用错误率为14.5%（95%置信区间为10.5%至18.6%）。这些内容错误主要是重大错误，占64.8%（95%置信区间为56.1%至73.5%），即所引用的来源未能证实、与论断无关或与论断相矛盾的引用论断。微小错误是过度简化、过度概括或微不足道的不准确之处，占35.2%（95%置信区间为26.5%至43.9%）。此外，与引用准确性计算不同的不当二次（或间接）引用发生率为10.4%（95%置信区间为3.4%至17.5%）。
