A Closer Look at the Rising Epidemic of Mass Shootings in the United States and Its Association With Gun Legislation, Laws, and Sales.

INTRODUCTION: Mass shootings pose a considerable threat to public safety and significantly cost the United States in terms of lives and expenses. The following are the specific aims of this study: (1) to assess US mass shootings, firearm-related sales, laws, and regional differences from 2015 to 2021 and (2) to investigate changes in mass shootings and firearm sales before and during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of mass shootings, gun sales, and laws regarding the minimum age required to purchase a firearm within the United States from 2015 to 2021. The 10 states/regions with the greatest mean mass shootings/capita from 2015 to 2021 were selected for further analysis. RESULTS: Mass shootings correlated significantly with firearm sales from 2015 to 2021 nationwide (P < 0.02 for all). The growth in mass shootings, the number killed/injured, and gun sales were greater in 2020 and 2021 compared to the years prior. The 10 states with the highest mean mass shooting/capita over the study period were Alabama, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee. No significant correlation was found between the number of mass shootings/capita and the minimum age to purchase a firearm. CONCLUSIONS: Firearm sales correlated significantly with mass shootings from 2015 to 2021. Mass shootings and gun sales increased at greater rates during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic compared to the years before the pandemic. Mass shootings exhibited inconsistent trends with state gun laws regarding the minimum age to purchase a firearm. Future studies may consider investigating the methods by which firearms used in mass shootings are obtained to further identify targets for prevention.

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.