Baethge Christopher, Jergas Hannah
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, 50937, Germany.
Deutsches Ärzteblatt & Deutsches Arzteblatt International, Editorial Offices, Cologne, Germany.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Jul 23;10(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s41073-025-00173-z.
Quotations are crucial to science but have been shown to be often inaccurate. Quotation errors, that is, a reference not supporting the authors' claim, may still be a significant issue in scientific medical writing. This study aimed to examine the quotation error rate and trends over time in the medical literature.
A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and reference lists for quotation error studies in medicine and without date or language restrictions identified 46 studies analyzing 32,000 quotations/references. Literature search, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two raters. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to analyze error rates and trends (protocol pre-registered on OSF).
16.9% (95% CI: 14.1%-20.0%) of quotations were incorrect, with approximately half classified as major errors (8.0% [95% CI: 6.4%-10.0%]). Heterogeneity was high, and Egger's test for small study effects remained negative throughout. Meta-regression showed no significant improvement in quotation accuracy over recent years (slope: -0.002 [95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02], p = 0.85). Neither risk of bias, nor the number of references were statistically significantly associated with total error rate, but journal impact factor was: Spearman's ρ = -0.253 (p = 0.043, binomial test, N = 25).
Quotation errors remain a problem in the medical literature, with no improvement over time. Addressing this issue requires concerted efforts to improve scholarly practices and editorial processes.
引用对于科学至关重要，但已被证明常常不准确。引用错误，即参考文献不支持作者的主张，在医学科学写作中可能仍是一个重大问题。本研究旨在调查医学文献中引用错误率及其随时间的变化趋势。
对PubMed、科学网以及医学引用错误研究的参考文献列表进行系统检索，无日期或语言限制，共识别出46项分析32,000条引用/参考文献的研究。文献检索、数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名评估者独立进行。采用随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归分析错误率和趋势（方案已在开放科学框架上预先注册）。
16.9%（95%置信区间：14.1%-20.0%）的引用不正确，其中约一半被归类为重大错误（8.0% [95%置信区间：6.4%-10.0%]）。异质性较高，Egger小研究效应检验始终为阴性。荟萃回归显示近年来引用准确性没有显著提高（斜率：-0.002 [95%置信区间：-0.03至0.02]，p = 0.85）。偏倚风险和参考文献数量与总错误率均无统计学显著关联，但期刊影响因子有：Spearman相关系数ρ = -0.253（p = 0.043，二项检验，N = 25）。
引用错误在医学文献中仍然是一个问题，且未随时间得到改善。解决这一问题需要共同努力改进学术实践和编辑流程。
