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

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.

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

Quotation error is an inaccuracy in the assertions made by authors when referencing another's work. This study aimed to assess the quotation errors in articles referencing the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT). A literature search was performed to identify all citations of DRAFFT from 2014 to 2020. The relevant publications were assessed by two reviewers using a validated framework of error classification. There were 83 articles containing references to DRAFFT. There was substantial agreement between the two reviewers (Kappa coefficient 0.66). We found 22/83 (28%) of articles contained an error, with one article containing two errors. There were 12 major errors, which were not substantiated by, were unrelated to or contradicted the findings of DRAFFT, and 11 minor errors, including numerical inaccuracies, oversimplification or generalization. This study highlights that a significant number of articles inaccurately quote DRAFFT. Authors and journals should consider checking the accuracy of key referenced statements.