[Bibliographic errors in Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas. A retrospective study of the year 1995]. A review of the accuracy of references in the journal Emergency Medicine. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Quotation accuracy in review articles. [Abstract quality assessment of articles from the Annales de Dermatologie]. Accuracy of references in four pediatric nursing journals. Risk factors for citation errors in peer-reviewed nursing journals. Reference accuracy in Critical Care Medicine. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Trust, but verify. The accuracy of references in four anesthesia journals. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. Citation and quotation accuracy in three anatomy journals. A survey of reference accuracy in five national dental journals. Accuracy of references in the orthopaedic literature. The accuracy of references in Anaesthesia. The quality of citations in major international obstetrics and gynecology journals. Accuracy of references in five leading medical journals. Accuracy of references in the pediatric surgery journals. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. The accuracy of references in Australian and New Zealand Medical Journals. How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? Accuracy of referencing in the ophthalmic literature. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. [Errors in bibliographic references of Nefrología from 1981 to 1995. A quality control]. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. [Errors in literature references in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde]. Do authors check their references? A survey of 500 references from the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The accuracy of references in manuscripts submitted for publication. How accurate are references in clinical chemistry? Improvement of the accuracy of references in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. References in Indian Pediatrics: authors need to be accurate. What is the quality of the reporting of research ethics in publications of nursing home research? Reference accuracy in the emergency medicine literature. A survey of reference accuracy in two Asian dermatologic journals (the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology). Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of original research articles in selected journals. Quality of structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study. Reference accuracy in neonatal-maternal nursing literature. [The structured summary: a tool for reader and author]. Reference citation accuracy in theJournal of Anesthesia. [Errors in bibliographic references: a retrospective study in Medicina Clinica (1962-1992)]. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. Accuracy of references in nursing journals. Effectiveness of a journal intervention to improve abstract quality. Accuracy of references in general readership nursing journals. Effect of including a clinical example on the ability of physical therapists to apply information in a technical research report. Accuracy of references in five biomedical informatics journals. [The accuracy of references in Turkish journals in orthopedics and traumatology]. The accuracy of references in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. The accuracy of references in the Hong Kong Medical Journal. Quotation accuracy in neuroanesthesiologic research. Reference accuracy in the dermatologic literature. Quotation and reference accuracy of three nursing journals. The practical effects of errors in reference lists in nursing research journals. A survey of the accuracy of references in 10 dental journals. Quotation accuracy: fact or fiction? Accuracy of references in three critical care nursing journals. How does the peer review process influence AANA journal article readability? Enhancement of hypoxemia by right-to-left atrial shunting in severe asthma. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Improvement of the accuracy of references in the Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia. Author, verify your references! Or, the accuracy of references in Israeli medical journals. Preliminary assessment of the effect of more informative (structured) abstracts on citation retrieval from MEDLINE. Structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989-1991. Reference citations in radiology: accuracy and appropriateness of use in two major journals. [Errors in bibliographic references in the Revista Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación: retrospective study of 1994]. The accuracy of references in paediatric journals. Accuracy of references in Anesthesia & Analgesia does not improve. The accuracy of references of three allergy journals. Improvement of the accuracy of references in Anesthesiology. How accurate are references in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery? The accuracy of citation and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals.
To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citation in Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas (REED) and compare it with other Spanish and international journals.
                We reviewed all 1995 volumes of the REED and randomly selected 100 references from these volumes. Nine citations of non-journal articles were excluded and the remaining 91 citations were carefully scrutinized. Each original article was compared for author's name, title of article, name of journal, volume number, year of publication and pages.
                Some type of error was detected in 61.6% of the references and on 3 occasions (3.3%) impeded finding to the original article. Errors were found in authors (37.3%); article title (16.4%), pages (6.6%), journal title (4.4%), volume (2.2%) and year (1%). A single error was found in 42 citations, 2 were found in 13 and 3 were found in 1.
                REED's rate of error in references is comparable to the rates of other spanish and international journals. Authors should exercise more care in preparing bibliographies and should invest more effort in verification of quoted references. To assess the accuracy of references in articles published in Emergency Medicine, and to categorize these errors.
                All the references in Volume 12 of Emergency Medicine were listed and numbered consecutively. A sample of 100 references was then selected. Each reference was then checked, initially on an electronic database, with the original article being used as the gold standard.
                1469 citations were included in the study. A random sample of 100 was taken and examined in detail. 35 papers were shown to have at least one error, and a total of 41 errors were found. The maximum number of errors in one paper was 3. These errors are analysed in detail.
                Poor reference accuracy is a common problem in medical literature, and Emergency Medicine is not immune to these failings. Authors need to take more care to ensure that the accuracy of citations improves. Structured abstracts have been widely adopted in medical journals, with little demonstration of their superiority over unstructured abstracts.
                To compare abstract quality among 3 clinical dermatology journals and to compare the quality of structured and unstructured abstracts within those journals.
                Abstracts of a random sample of clinical studies (case reports, case series, and reviews excluded) published in 2000 in the Archives of Dermatology, The British Journal of Dermatology, and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology were evaluated. Each abstract was rated by 2 independent investigators, using a 30-item quality scale divided into 8 categories (objective, design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results, and conclusions). Items applicable to the study and present in the main text of the article were rated as being present or absent from the abstract. A global quality score (range, 0-1) for each abstract was established by calculating the proportion of criteria among the eligible criteria that was rated as being present. A score was also calculated for each category. Interrater agreement was assessed with a kappa statistic. Mean +/- SD scores were compared among journals and between formats (structured vs unstructured) using analysis of variance.
                Mean quality scores of abstracts by journal and by format.
                Interrater agreement was good (kappa = 0.71). Mean +/- SD quality scores of abstracts were significantly different among journals (Archives of Dermatology, 0.78 +/- 0.07; The British Journal of Dermatology, 0.67 +/- 0.17; and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 0.64 +/- 0.15; P =.045) and between formats (structured, 0.71 +/- 0.11; and unstructured, 0.56 +/- 0.18; P =.002). The setting category had the lowest scores.
                The quality of abstracts differed across the 3 tested journals. Unstructured abstracts were demonstrated to be of lower quality compared with structured abstracts and may account for the differences in quality scores among the journals. The structured format should be more widely adopted in dermatology journals. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of referenced statements in review articles focused on drug therapy. Review articles published between January and December 1987 in Clinical Pharmacy, DICP, Drugs, and Pharmacotherapy were used. Ninety-nine references from these articles were randomly selected and pulled to determine if the published study results were in agreement with the review article statement. These references accounted for 165 statements. Thirty-nine of 165 statements in the review articles (24 percent) were found to be inappropriate when compared with the original references. These inappropriate quotations were classified as either wrong, misleading, or deriving from only the discussion section of the original article. There is a need for increased awareness by authors to differentiate between reported results, article hypothesis, and their own interpretations, as well as for accuracy in quotation. Article's abstracts are an important part of the publication, widely available in electronic databases. We assessed the quality of abstracts in the Annales de Dermatologie. The main objective was to compare abstract quality in 3 periods in the past decade. In this Journal, structured abstracts are required since 1993. The secondary objective was to compare structured and non structured abstract quality.
                Three periods were assessed: 1991-92, 1996 and 2000. We selected the abstracts of original studies, excluding non focused descriptive case series. We used a criteria scale elaborated by Narine et al. Thirty criteria were assessed for each abstract, divided into 8 categories: purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, outcome measurement, results and conclusion. If applicable to the study, a criterion was rated 1 (present) or 0 (absent). The final score for each abstract was defined as the ratio of positive answers among rated criteria. Mean scores for each period were compared using analysis of variance (mean +/- standard deviation). The temporal trend was calculated by simple linear regression. The mean scores of structured and unstructured abstracts were also evaluated and then compared.
                For each period, chronologically, 8, 17 and 18 (total 43) abstracts were evaluated. Mean scores for each period were 0.72 +/- 0.20 (1991-92); 0.69 +/- 0.12 (1996) and 0.83 +/- 0.08 (2000). These 3 scores were significantly different (P=0.006), with a trend toward increasing (Regression coefficient R(2)=0.136; P=0.015). Research setting obtained the lowest score (0.4). Structured (0.72 +/- 0.20; n=35) and non structured abstracts (0.76 +/- 0.12; n=8) were not significantly different.
                Abstracts of articles published in the Annales de Dermatologie contained on average 3/4 of the required informative items. The trend toward better scores may be explained by an increased attention of the editorial board as well as authors and reviewers. The quality could be improved by systematically mentioning the research setting. Inaccurate references hinder retrieval of documents, may prevent researchers from examining all of the work by an author, and may result in authors not getting credit for their work. This study determines the number and types of errors in references in four widely read pediatric nursing journals. Of the 190 references examined, 79 of them contained an error, for an overall error rate of 41.6%. Major errors, which prevent the rapid retrieval of information, occurred in 28.9% of the references. Minor errors occurred at half the rate (13.7%) of major errors. Errors in the titles of articles, chapters, and books were the most common type of mistake followed by errors in authors' names.
                Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company Citation errors are common among nursing journals. But, there are no data regarding the factors that predispose to these errors.
                To determine the risk factors that predispose to citation error in peer-reviewed nursing journals.
                Five hundred and fifty references were selected randomly from articles published in eleven nursing journals for the year 1998. The incidences of major and minor citation errors were determined by comparing with the original articles. The relative odds of citation errors for the number of authors, collaborating institutions and the length of the reference list were calculated. The correlation between the scientific quality of the journal (by means of journal impact factor and immediacy index) and the incidence of citation error were also determined.
                The incidence of citation errors is comparable to those reported previously. Long reference lists in articles written by a single author predicted strongly the occurrence of minor citation errors. Journals with a high impact factor and immediacy index tend to contain fewer minor mistakes. None of these factors affect the incidence of major errors.
                Contributors to journals should be aware of the various risk factors for citation errors. Citation accuracy may be improved by modifying these factors. nan To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality.
                Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine.
                Masked before-after study. MANUSCRIPTS: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993.
                We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process).
                33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean.
                Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings. To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citation in the anesthesia literature, we reviewed all 1988 volumes of ANESTHESIOLOGY, Anesthesia and Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia and sequentially numbered all references appearing in that year (n = 22,748). One hundred references from each of the four journals were randomly selected. After citations to nonjournal articles (i.e., books or book chapters) were excluded, the remaining 348 citations were analyzed in detail. Six standard bibliographic elements--authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year--were examined in each selected reference. Primary sources were reviewed, unless our institution did not own the source or could not obtain it through interlibrary loan, in which case standard indexes, abstracting services, and computerized databases were consulted. Each element was checked for accuracy, and references were classified as either correct or incorrect. A reference was correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source. Of the examined references, more than half (50.3%) contained an error in at least one element. The elements most likely to be inaccurate were, in descending order, article title, author, page numbers, journal title, volume number, and year. No significant differences (P = 0.283) existed in the error rates of the four journals; the percentage of citations containing at least one error ranged from 44% (Anesthesia and Analgesia) to 56% (British Journal of Anaesthesia). The citation error rate of anesthesia journals is similar to that reported in other specialties, where error rates ranging from 38% to 54% have been documented. Structured abstracts, that is, abstracts that describe a study using requisite content headings, provide more informative content. Concomitant reporting in the text of the report might improve with structured abstract use because of increased awareness by authors or editors of important study areas associated with content headings.
                To assess whether structured abstract use is associated with improved reporting of randomized clinical trials.
                Survey of trial reports published the year preceding, of, and following new use of structured abstracts, found by hand searching Archives of Ophthalmology (1992-1994) and Ophthalmology (1991-1993), as well as trial reports published concurrently without change in abstract format (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1991-1994).
                We measured the inclusion of 56 criteria derived from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) descriptors (JAMA 1996;276:637-639) in the text of each report and calculated the number of criteria included per report and the proportion of reports including individual criteria. Reports with structured abstracts were compared with those without, and reports published in 1993 and 1994 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology were compared with those published in 1991 and 1992.
                The mean (SEM) number of criteria included by authors was 15.8 (0.4) per report in 125 trial reports. We found no difference in the mean number of criteria included or the proportion of reports that included specific criteria by journal. Following structured abstract use, there was no difference in either the mean number of criteria per report or the proportion of reports including a majority of criteria within each CONSORT subheading. Four criteria were included more often and 2 less often following structured abstract use in individual journals.
                Using CONSORT descriptor criteria to evaluate reporting quality, we found no difference in text reporting associated with structured abstract use in the journals examined. Citation and quotation errors are common in medical journals. We assessed the prevalence of those errors in gross anatomy journals, where articles often cite old anatomical studies. The study included 199 randomly selected references from articles published in the first 2001 issue of three major gross anatomy journals: Annals of Anatomy, Clinical Anatomy, and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. The selected references were checked for accuracy against the original articles. Citation errors were classified as major, intermediate, and minor. Quotation errors were classified as major and minor. Citations errors were found in 27% (54/199) of the references and 38% of them were major errors. Errors occurred in 19% (52/272) of quotations and nearly all (94%) were major. Furthermore, 24% of the quotations were indirect references to a secondary, instead of original, source. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of citation or quotation errors between the references published before or after the introduction of MEDLINE (chi2 test, P > 0.05) in 1963, and the prevalence of these errors in gross anatomy journals was similar to that found in other medical fields. A high proportion of major citation errors, a very high proportion of major quotation errors, and the substantial number of indirect quotations call for serious editorial action in anatomy journals.
                Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Previous studies have examined the bibliographic accuracy of citations in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to assess reference accuracy in five national dental journals. One hundred references were randomly selected from the March, 1987, issue of each of five dental journals (a total of 500 references). Each reference was verified either from the original source or from other indexing tools if the original was unavailable. References were divided into two categories: incorrect and correct. The number of incorrect references was counted and subdivided into major and minor errors. The errors were grouped by types of error: author, article title, citation (which included errors in journal title, volume, issue, and page numbers), and "unable to verify". This survey found 211 (42%) inaccuracies out of 500 references reviewed, with a total of 248 errors within the incorrect group. Out of the latter, 173 (70%) were minor errors, and 75 (30%) were major errors. Types of minor errors ranked as follows: minor article title errors, 86 (35%); minor author errors, 61 (25%); and minor citation errors, 26 (10%). Types of major errors were ranked as follows: incorrect journal citation, 32 (13%); "unable to verify", 25 (10%); incorrect author, 10 (4%); and incorrect article title, 8 (3%). The results of this survey showed that nearly half of the references reviewed were inaccurate. nan We reviewed all the references quoted in Volume 45 (1990) (n = 3967) and half the references quoted in Volume 49 (1994) (n = 2183) of Anaesthesia. The references were numbered sequentially and 100 references from each year were randomly selected. Citations of non-journal articles were omitted leaving 197 citations for careful scrutiny. The authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year were examined in each selected reference. A reference was deemed correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source. Of the references examined, 32% and 41% contained one or more errors in 1990 and 1994, respectively. The elements most likely to be inaccurate were, in descending order of frequency, article title, author, and page number. There was no significant difference in the error rate between the 2 years. It is the responsibility of contributors to ensure that all references are carefully checked. Our goal was to determine the error rate in references in articles published in three major international journals in obstetrics and gynecology.
                All issues (excluding supplements) for the year 1995 of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were examined. References were numbered sequentially, and 50 randomly selected references from each journal were checked against the original for accuracy.
                Errors were found in the majority of references. The lowest error rate was 55.6% from the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and the highest was 66.7% from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The difference between journals was not statistically significant. The most frequent types of error were in the title of the article or in the authors' names.
                Error rates in major international journals in obstetrics and gynecology are high, and care must be taken by authors and journal staff to improve the quality of published articles. nan nan Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles. We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing).
                400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included. We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group. The package also included two questionnaires: the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions). The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores. We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2.
                After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p = 0.03 or smaller). In particular, the overall score and general medical value were significantly improved (p = 0.00001 for each). Editing led to significant improvement in 11 of 16 questions (69%, p = 0.017 or smaller), and especially in style and readability (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004). Generally, we found no differences between the scores of the four categories of evaluators. 72% of the evaluators correctly identified which version was which.
                Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing. We think that peer review and editing are worthwhile tasks. We also think that possible biases would have had a negligible effect on our results (including the fact that we selected the first 25 evaluators who responded, that some evaluators may have read the published version, and that one questionnaire may have looked more scientific than the other, more editorial one). Previous studies have found high error rates in references in biomedical journals. The aim of this paper was to assess the accuracy of references in three Australian and New Zealand general medical journals.
                References from the August 1999 issues of the Medical Journal of Australia, the New Zealand Medical Journal and the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine were assessed for accuracy using PubMed of the National Library of Medicine.
                This study found a high rate of reference errors in Australian and New Zealand medical journals. The reference error rate ranged from 33.5 to 48.8%. The most frequent errors were in the author's names and in the title.
                The reference error rate in Australia and New Zealand medical journals is high and is preventable. Authors should be more diligent and preferably verify cited references against the original article. The accuracy of quotations and references in six medical journals published during January 1984 was assessed. The original author was misquoted in 15% of all references, and most of the errors would have misled readers. Errors in citation of references occurred in 24%, of which 8% were major errors--that is, they prevented immediate identification of the source of the reference. Inaccurate quotations and citations are displeasing for the original author, misleading for the reader, and mean that untruths become "accepted fact." Some suggestions for reducing these high levels of inaccuracy are that papers scheduled for publication with errors of citation should be returned to the author and checked completely and a permanent column specifically for misquotations could be inserted into the journal. To investigate the frequency of citation and quotation errors in the ophthalmic literature.
                Analysis of 200 references from 100 papers published in 10 ophthalmic journals.
                A sample of 20 references was randomly selected from each of the 10 journals and each reference was checked for accuracy. Quotations were categorized as totally, partially, or not accurate.
                There were 35 citation errors in 32 references, only four of which were errors in PubMed. Thirty quotations of references were not accurate; 20 were partially accurate.
                Citation and quotation errors are relatively common within the ophthalmic literature. This may be improved through technical editing. The aim of the study was to investigate the reference and quotation accuracy in four peer-reviewed manual therapy journals. A stratified random sample of original research (n=7) was collected from each of the journals spanning the years January 2000 to December 2001. A further random selection of 80 references from each journal paper sampled was then reviewed (Total N=320) for citation and quotation accuracy. Numbers of citations with errors were determined, then classified as either major or minor and categorized by bibliographic headings (author, title, journal, year, volume, page and irretrievable). Each quotation was individually assessed for accuracy and judged to be either correct or incorrect. A quotation was deemed correct if it accurately substantiated and reported the original authors assertions. One hundred and fifteen citations across all journals contained errors (35.9%). Some citations exhibited multiple major and minor errors. Bibliographically classified errors for all journals showed 61 author, 51 title, 6 journal, 4 year, 12 volume and 25 page errors. JMPT showed the lowest referencing error rate (20%) while JBWMT recorded the highest (58.8%). The total number of quotation errors across all journals was 69 (12.3%). JMPT showed the lowest quotation error rate of 6 (4.7%), MT had 12 errors (7.3%), JOM produced 21 errors (13.3%), while JBWMT recorded the highest error rate with 32 (27.6%). Poor citation and quotation is a reflection on the scholarly work of the authors and the journal. The trend for errors in quotation is more worrying than citation errors as it reflects poor diligence on the part of the investigators. The accuracy of the reference list is considered an essential factor in determining the quality of a scientific publication, and has been reviewed and published in several medical journals. The rate of citation errors in NEFROLOGIA has not been published before. The aim of this study has been to examine the accuracy of the references citation in the numbers of the journal published for a period of 15 years, from the first issue in 1981 to the last one on 1995.
                In this period 68 ordinary issues of the journal were published, with 520 original articles that constituted the data base, 87 articles were selected applying a table of random numbers with 5 references of each article selected to be reviewed with a total of 435. The accuracy of the name of the authors, title of the article, volume, initial and last page and year of publication were evaluated, accordingly with the NEFROLOGIA normative. Citation errors were considered major or minor depending on whether they prevented or not the immediate retrieval of the article listed.
                Of the 435 citations examined, 433 could be located, being impossible in 2 with the data supplied. In 189 (43.45%) 237 errors were detected, with 13.50% of them being considered major and 86.50% minor, with the greatest percentage of errors occurring in the data about the authors of the articles referenced 96 (40.50%).
                The issues of NEFROLOGIA published in this period present a high number of bibliographic reference errors, being the rate similar to other evaluated scientific periodical journals. This fact should be improved, and authors and reviewers should thoroughly check their references in order to avoid these mistakes, as they affect the quality standard of the publication. To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in three medical journals.
                Blind, criterion-based observational study.
                Random sample of 300 abstracts (25 abstracts per journal each year) of articles published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1988 and 1989 (nonstructured abstracts) and in 1991 and 1992 (structured abstracts).
                The quality of abstracts was measured against 33 objective criteria, which were divided into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results and conclusions). The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable; the score varied from 0 to 1.
                The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstracts were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively (p < 0.001). The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstracts than for the nonstructured ones. The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstracts in JAMA than for those in BMJ (0.60 v. 0.54, p < 0.05). The scores for structured abstracts did not differ significantly between the three journals.
                The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstracts. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstracts and the extent to which abstracts reflect the content of the articles. To measure the effect of the peer review and editorial processes on the readability of original articles.
                Comparison of manuscripts before and after the peer review and editorial processes.
                Annals of Internal Medicine between March 1 and November 30, 1992. MANUSCRIPTS: One hundred one consecutive manuscripts reporting original research.
                Assessment of readability by means of two previously validated indexes: the Gunning fog index (units of readability in the fog index roughly correlate to years of education) and the Flesch reading ease score. Each manuscript was analyzed for readability and length on receipt and after it had passed through the peer review and editorial processes. Text and abstracts were analyzed similarly but separately. Mean readability scores were compared by two-tailed t tests for paired observations.
                Mean (+/- SD) initial readability scores of manuscripts and abstracts by the Gunning fog index were 17.16 +/- 1.55 and 16.65 +/- 2.80, respectively. At publication, scores were 16.85 +/- 1.42 and 15.64 +/- 2.42 (P = .0005 and P < .0001 for before-after differences, respectively). By comparison, studies of other print media showed scores of about 11 for the New York Times editorial page and about 18 for a typical legal contract. Similar changes were found for the Flesch scores. The median length of the manuscripts increased by 2.6% and that of the abstracts by 4.2% during the processes.
                The peer review and editorial processes slightly improved the readability of original articles and their abstracts, but both remained difficult to read at publication. Better readability scores may improve readership. Literature references contain a considerable number of inaccuracies, both in citations and in quotations. We investigated the accuracy of quotations and references in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. We checked at random 100 references of articles presented for publication during a period of 4 weeks using Index Medicus. The citation and quotation of another 100 references (50 with a reading list of less than 13, and 50 with a reading list of more than 24 articles) of published original articles were checked, using the original article. In the references of articles presented for publication 70% contained one or more inaccuracies. In the published articles 31% was not completely correct. In 5% these errors prevented immediate identification of the cited article. In one of every three articles a citation error was made: 5 trivial errors, 16 slightly misleading and 12 seriously misleading errors were found. We could not find a relation between the number of citation errors and the length of the reading list. The original source was not cited in 8 articles. Our conclusion is that the number of inaccuracies, in references as well as in citations, is high; authors should check this part of their articles more carefully. Notably the use of multiple references after a sentence with a number of statements is to be avoided. From a systematic study of 500 references randomly selected in the January through July, 1992, issues of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, it was found that 26% had errors. 6.2% of the referenced articles could not be found at all; either due to the fact that they were obscure foreign articles, their age made it difficult to verify, they cited non-peer reviewed journals, or the references cited journals that possibly did not exist. The remaining references were verified either from the original source or from other indexing tools if the original was not available. To analyze the errors present in references cited in papers submitted for peer review for possible publication.
                Nineteen consecutive manuscripts submitted for peer review were assessed. They contained a total of 261 references. Manuscripts were submitted to 1 of 5 major radiology journals. Journal references were compared with either the original articles or abstracts obtained through MEDLINE. Book references were checked against the original book. In total, 259 of 261 references were obtained. The remaining 2 references were both out-of-print books that were not available. Each reference was checked and errors were identified as either major or minor, depending on the gravity of the error. Errors were analyzed to see whether they could be attributed to not adhering to journal guidelines or to other reasons.
                Of a total of 259 references, 56% (n = 145) contained at least 1 error, 53% (n = 137) contained minor errors and 15% (n = 39) contained major errors. Five per cent (n = 13) of references had more than 3 errors, and 79% (n = 274) of all errors were the direct result of authors not following journal instructions.
                Over half of all references included in manuscripts submitted to radiology journals contain at least 1 error. The majority are avoidable, resulting from failure to follow the journal's instructions to authors. nan nan To determine the accuracy of references published in Indian Pediatrics, we reviewed the reference lists appended to the original articles published in Indian Pediatrics during the year 2002 (volume 39) for citation and quotation accuracy. A total of 176 references out of 322 cited in 17 original articles could be retrieved from available resources. Errors of citation were found in 69 (39.27 percent) references while errors of quotation were found in 15 (8.6 percent) references. The most common errors were those in the name of authors and title of the article. Contributors should make serious efforts to check the accuracy of the references cited in their manuscripts. To assess the quality of reporting of research ethics in published clinical research that involves a particularly vulnerable population: nursing home residents.
                A structured review of publications researched from 1992 to 1996 that involve nursing home residents. The review instrument assessed each publication's compliance with four common standards for research that involves nursing home residents or the cognitively impaired: justification of the use of nursing home residents, Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, nursing home committee review, and informed consent. For each publication, these results were summed into a quality score. The research ethics requirements contained in the journals' instructions for authors that corresponded with each publication were categorized in order to compare whether an association exists between the average quality score for each category and the detail of its research ethics instructions.
                Forty-five publications were identified. The four quality measures of research ethics showed that (1) all 45 publications reported justification of use of nursing home residents, (2) 36 publications reported that informed consent was obtained or waived, (3) 18 publications reported IRB review, and (4) six publications reported nursing home committee review. Of the 35 publications reporting informed consent was obtained, 16 reported assessing subjects' decisional capacity, and 24 reported whether cognitively impaired subjects were included (19) or excluded (5). The research ethics requirements of each publication's instructions for authors ranked it in one of four categories: (A) None (9); (B) Less than "Uniform Requirements (UR) for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (7); (C) UR (24); (D) UR plus Additional Instructions (5). A positive association exists between the detail of a research ethics instructions category and the average research ethics quality score for each category (Kruskal-Wallis chi2 = 11.2, P = .01). That is, the more detailed the instructions, the greater the quality score.
                In publications of research that involves nursing home residents, basic standards of research ethics are not typically reported. However, the positive association between research ethics instructions category and research ethics quality score suggests that a journal's instructions for authors or other features of peer review and editing can affect the quality of reporting research ethics. To determine the incidence and nature of errors in the citation and quotation of references contained in the emergency medicine literature.
                A retrospective analysis of a random sample of articles and references found in the three major emergency medicine journals.
                A university/county hospital.
                We examined single issues of three emergency medicine journals: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Journal of Emergency Medicine, and American Journal of Emergency Medicine.
                None.
                Four independent reviewers assessed 145 references from 46 referring authors for citational and quotational accuracy.
                Major and minor citation errors were found in 10.3% and 17.2% of reference listings, respectively. Qualitative quotational errors were found in 35.2% of references. Eighty-two percent of these errors were considered to be major. Quantitative quotational errors were found in 47% of references reviewed. Secondary rather than primary reference sources were used in 41.4% of references reviewed.
                This study demonstrates a substantial error rate in the citation and quotation of reference sources in the emergency medicine literature. In addition, verification of primary source material was not done by a large percentage of the authors reviewed. Recommendations for improving the accuracy of the emergency medicine literature are offered. The reference list is an important part of a scientific article. To be useful, it must be accurate.
                To evaluate the reference accuracy in the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology, we randomly selected 100 references from each journal and checked them against the original articles.
                The overall rate of citation errors was 24% in the Journal of Dermatology and 33% in the Korean Journal of Dermatology. Errors in the title and author names were common, each occurring in about half of the citation errors. The overall rate of quotation errors was 14% in the Journal of Dermatology and 27% in the Korean Journal of Dermatology.
                This study shows that the rate of citation errors is unacceptably high in the Journal of Dermatology and the Korean Journal of Dermatology, which significantly diminishes the value of the reference list. We would strongly urge that the peer review of citation and quotation accuracy should be strengthened. To assess and compare the quality of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of cost-minimization analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses of original research articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals.
                MEDLINE was used to identify articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals using the MeSH word "economic" and text words "cost" and "pharmacoeconomic"; the journal PharmacoEconomics was searched manually. All retrieved abstracts were evaluated. Original, comparative (at least one drug comparator) research articles (1990-1994) reporting both costs and clinical outcomes were included in the quality analysis. Abstract quality was assessed as a percentage by using a checklist with 29 objective criteria. Group consensus produced interrater reliability greater than 0.8.
                One thousand two published abstracts labeled with the above key words were identified. Of these, 951 were excluded from quality assessment because they were not original research (18%), were not pharmacoeconomic research (47%), lacked a drug comparator (35%), or did not report a clinical outcome (0.5%). Thus, the quality of 51 (5% of the total) remaining abstracts was assessed. Overall scores were 56% in 1990 and 58% in 1994 (p = 0.094). Medical articles scored highest (61.5%; n = 25), pharmacy articles were next (54.3%; n = 5), and health economics articles were lowest (53.4%; n = 21) (p = 0.091); structured abstracts scored significantly higher (62.5%; n = 20) than unstructured (53.3%; n = 31) (p = 0.003).
                Abstract quality was generally poor, with no significant change in quality over time. Medical journals scored highest, probably because they use structured abstracts. Guidelines for structured pharmacoeconomic abstracts may assist in improving quality. We compared the quality of structured abstracts of original research articles from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1991 to 1992 and 2001 to 2002 between journals.
                A random, stratified sample of 54 abstracts from 2001 to 2002 in BMJ, CMAJ, and JAMA was compiled and coded. Two blinded raters reviewed 27 abstracts each against 33 objective criteria, separated into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results, and conclusion). The quality score was the proportion of criteria present (range = 0-1).
                The overall mean quality score (0.74) for 2001-2002 was significantly higher than the 1988-1989 unstructured abstracts (mean = 0.57; p<0.001) but not different from the 1991-1992 structured abstracts (mean = 0.74; p>0.05). In 2001-2002, abstracts of CMAJ and JAMA (both means = 0.76) improved significantly over 1991-1992 (p<0.05) and scored significantly higher than BMJ (mean = 0.71; d.f. = 16, p<0.05). Some individual criteria scores (intervention, statistical information) improved but information was found consistently under-represented in areas that imply shortcomings of the studies.
                We found a consistency in abstract quality regardless of the precise format used by different journals. This indicates that the framework for research articles already in place should be maintained and further modification of the framework may not necessarily improve the abstract quality. To identify the frequency and types of reference errors in neonatal-maternal nursing literature. This study was an extension of earlier research on reference accuracy in pediatric and critical care nursing journals.
                A random sample was selected of references in three nursing journals: Neonatal Network: The Journal of Neonatal Nursing; Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing; and The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing. References were compared against original publications, and errors were classified as major or minor based on criteria used in earlier studies.
                Fifty-four of the 221 references had errors, for an overall error rate of 24.4 percent. Major errors were found in 21.3 percent of the references, and minor errors were calculated at 3.2 percent. Errors in the author's name were most common, followed by errors in titles of articles and books. The rates of reference errors in this study were lower than those reported previously in the nursing and medical literature. To determine and to compare the information contained in structured abstracts in original articles in Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), British Medical Journal (BMJ), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and of abstracts that have been published in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTvG).
                Editorial office NTvG.
                Descriptive.
                Critical reading of 15 original articles of AIM (5), BMJ (5) and NEJM (5) in 5 consecutive issues starting from 1 March 1990 and all original articles of 6 consecutive issues of NTvG starting from 7 april 1990. According to the criteria of the 'ad hoc working group for critical appraisal of the medical literature' the amount of information in all foreign abstracts and 10 selected abstracts of NTvG were determined. The authors made structured abstracts of all read articles of NTvG.
                Structured abstracts of AIM, BMJ and NEJM are clear and detailed. However information about key sociodemographic features of patients, their selection and the way of statistical analysis of the results was often missing. In NTvG articles essential information was lacking with respect to objective, design, setting of the study, sociodemographic features of patients, and patients and methods. Structured abstracts of articles in NTvG take more space: an average of 266 instead of 164 words.
                Structured abstracts take more space but are more informative. Authors of original articles in NTvG are advised to prepare structured abstracts. Editors and peer reviewers should ascertain that no essential information is lacking. To determine the accuracy of the bibliographic citations in theJournal of Anesthesia, all references appearing the years 1987 (Vol. 1;n=548) and 1994 (Vol. 8;n=1839) were sequentially numbered and 100 references from each year were randomly selected. After citations of non-journal articles were excluded (n=8 in 1987;n=7 in 1994), the remaining 185 citations were scrutinized. The authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year were examined for each reference. A reference was deemed correct if each clement of the citation was identical to its source. Of the references examined, 41% and 42% in 1987 and 1994, respectively, contained one or more errors. The elements that were inaccurate most often were, in descending order of frequency, article title, author, and page number. No significant differences existed in the error rate between the two years. We have demonstrated a considerable level of citation error in the reference lists of theJournal of Anesthesia articles, and no improvement over the last seven years. We recommend that contributors to theJournal of Anesthesia should carefully check the accuracy of their reference listings. Misspellings of transcription or the copy of references of articles published in the literature without verifying the information with the original document may be the cause of incorrect citations. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of citations to journal articles in 1962 to 1992 volumes of Medicina Clínica.
                A method of systematic sampling was used to choose five references for each of the 12 original articles per year selected at 5-year intervals (1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992). In the final sample of 420 references, errors in the six standard bibliographic elements--authors' names, article title, journal title, year, volume number, and page numbers--were analyzed. Major errors were defined when inaccuracies prevented identification of the cited article.
                Of the total 368 references verified, 132 (35.86%) were error free and the remaining 236 (64, 13%) were inaccurate. Multiple errors were found in 45% of cases. The mean number of errors per references was 1.13. Twelve references were incorrect, 221 errors were found in the authors' name, 131 in the title of the article, 14 in the name of the journal, 5 in the year of publication, 12 in the number of the volume, and 22 in the initial or final pages of the article. Major errors were detected in 94 (22.54%) cases and minor errors in 323 (77.45%). There were no statistically significant differences in the variation of the overall percentage of errors throughout the study period.
                A high rate of citation errors has been also documented in a Spanish medical journal. The importance of reference verification should be emphasized and authors should exercise more care in preparing bibliographies of their articles. The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate.
                To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specific instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accuracy.
                Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that had been reviewed and were being returned to the authors with an invitation to revise.
                Proportion of abstracts containing 1 or more of the following defects: inconsistency in data between abstract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or other information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions not justified by information in the abstract.
                Of 250 manuscripts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, leaving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control group. Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26%) cases, respectively (P=.78). Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified conclusions.
                Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsistencies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstract but not in body, occur frequently. Specific instructions to authors who are revising their manuscripts are ineffective in lowering this rate. Journals should include in their editing processes specific and detailed attention to abstracts. The purpose of this study was to quantify and classify errors in reference lists of randomly selected, recently published issues of nursing journals (n = 17) and to assess whether these errors prevented retrieval of the cited documents. Randomly selected references, 65 from clinical journals and 47 from non-clinical journals, were compared to the original sources for accuracy. Errors were classified as minor (not preventing retrieval) and major (preventing retrieval). Errors occurred more frequently in references in clinical journals, 38.4% of those reviewed, as compared to 21.3% in of non-clinical journals. Additionally, 4.6% of the clinical references contained major errors, but no major errors were located in references from the non-clinical journals. These findings have implications for all readers. nan nan The purpose of this study was to determine whether an example in a technical research report would affect application of content to hypothetical patient problems and to future patients.
                Subjects were 69 physical therapists who routinely used isokinetic equipment in the treatment of patients with knee joint pathologies.
                Thirty-five subjects (group 1) read a research report that described mathematical models for predicting preinjury quadriceps femoris and hamstring muscle performance. The report included an example of applying the information. The remaining 34 subjects (group 2) read the same research report with the example omitted. Subjects were asked to select appropriate prediction models and determine preinjury knee torques for two hypothetical patients. Subjects were also contacted 6 to 12 weeks after initial data collection to determine whether they had applied research report results in their treatments of patients.
                Chi-square analyses indicated manuscript type was not related to the selection of correct models, but group 1 subjects computed correct torque values more frequently than did group 2 subjects. Insufficient data were available regarding application of research report content to patients.
                The results indicate application of technically oriented research reports may be enhanced by including examples of applications. (Gross MT, Sekerak DK, Allen DD. Effect of including a clinical example on the ability of physical therapists to apply information in a technical research report. To determine the rate and type of errors in biomedical informatics journal article references.
                References in articles from the first 2004 issues of five biomedical informatics journals, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Methods of Information in Medicine, and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine were compared with MEDLINE for journal, authors, title, year, volume, and page number accuracy. If discrepancies were identified, the reference was compared with the original publication. Two reviewers independently evaluated each reference.
                The five journal issues contained 37 articles. Among the 656 eligible references, 225 (34.3%) included at least one error. Among the 225 references, 311 errors were identified. One or more errors were found in the bibliography of 31 (84%) of the 37 articles. The reference error rates by journal ranged from 22.1% to 40.7%. Most errors (39.0%) occurred in the author element, followed by the journal (31.2%), title (17.7%), page (7.4%), year (3.5%), and volume (1.3%) information.
                The study identified a considerable error rate in the references of five biomedical informatics journals. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references and should more carefully check them, possibly using informatics-based assistance. The accuracy of references was assessed in Turkish journals of orthopedics and traumatology.
                All references cited in four journals (Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Arthroplasty Arthroscopic Surgery, Hacettepe Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, and The Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery) throughout 1995 to 1999 were numbered consecutively. One percent of references from each journal was randomly selected to be evaluated in comparison with primary sources. Errors were classified in three categories. Another randomized selection was made to check 50 references from each journal. The results were assessed by the t-test.
                Of 18,193 references cited in four journals, 182 references were checked. Errors were found in 117 references (63%), seven of which were major errors that prevented location of the primary source. When 50 references were checked from each journal, the mean inaccuracy rate was 60%. No significant differences were found between the journals with respect to the frequency of erroneous references.
                The high rate of inaccuracy emphasizes the need for greater care in the use of references on the part of authors, journal editors, and reviewers. nan The section of a research article most likely to be read is the abstract, and therefore it is particularly important that the abstract reflect the article faithfully.
                To assess abstracts accompanying research articles published in 6 medical journals with respect to whether data in the abstract could be verified in the article itself.
                Analysis of simple random samples of 44 articles and their accompanying abstracts published during 1 year(July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997) in each of 5 major general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and a consecutive sample of 44 articles published during 15 months (July 1, 1996-August 15, 1997) in the CMAJ.
                Abstracts were considered deficient if they contained data that were either inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body (including tables and figures) or not found in the body at all.
                The proportion of deficient abstracts varied widely (18%-68%) and to a statistically significant degree (P<.001) among the 6 journals studied.
                Data in the abstract that are inconsistent with or absent from the article's body are common, even in large-circulation general medical journals. We have reviewed the reference citations in volume 1 (1995) and volume 2 (1996) of the Hong Kong Medical Journal to determine their accuracy. One hundred references were randomly selected from each volume. After excluding references not from indexed journals, all citations were examined in detail by dividing them into six component elements and comparing them with the original. We found that 61% of references in volume 1 and 51% of references in volume 2 contained inaccuracies, giving an overall error rate of 56%. Thirty-eight percent of references contained errors in one element, 16% contained errors in two elements, and 2% contained errors in three or more elements. The most common errors were those of the title or authors' names. The rate of citation errors in the Hong Kong Medical Journal is at the high end of the range compared with other medical journals. Contributors to this journal need to take more care in checking their references before publication. A considerable number of quotational inaccuracies have been detected in medical and surgical publications in the past. Our study investigated the quotational accuracy of selected references of 32 scientific publications in six anesthesia journals referring to a single article published in a 1973 issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. In four (12.5%) articles, the quotation was in contradiction to the primary author's statement; in 15 (46.9%) articles, it was selective; and in 13 (40.6%) publications, it was in complete agreement with the important statements made in the original article. These results suggest that quotational inaccuracy is also evident in neuroanesthesiologic research. This problem deserves increased attention by authors as well as by reviewers and journal editors. The reference list is an important part of a scientific article. To be useful it must be accurate.
                The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of references in the dermatologic literature.
                We randomly selected 240 references (60 per journal) from the Archives of Dermatology, the British Journal of Dermatology, this Journal, and the Journal of Investigative Dermatology and checked them against the original articles.
                The overall rate of citation error (the information identifying the source) was 41%, and the quotation error (inconsistency between the statement referenced and the original source) was 35%. Only 36% of references were free of error.
                This study shows that the rate of citation and quotation errors is unacceptably high in the dermatologic literature, which significantly diminishes the value of the reference list. To determine the accuracy of bibliographic citations in three widely circulated nursing journals, RN, Nursing Management, and Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship. Accurate citations facilitate retrieval of the cited documents and establish the judgment and credibility of authors.
                Descriptive, comparative.
                A random sample of 60 references per journal published July 1995 to June 1996 was reviewed for citation and quotation accuracy. Errors were classified as major or minor. Data were analyzed using the SAS statistical package.
                Of the 180 references, 58 (32%) had citation errors, with 43 of 58 errors classified as major errors, which made retrieval of the cited work difficult; 12 of the 180 articles contained a major quotation error, including four instances where the content of the original article contradicted or was unrelated to the author's contention.
                The rate of citation and quotation errors in the three sampled nursing journals is comparable to rates previously reported for medical and nursing journals. Errors of citation and quotation diminish the value of published papers. Previous studies have noted the prevalence of errors in journal reference lists, including nursing journals, but an in-depth study of nursing research journals has not been repeated.
                The purpose of this study was to determine the number and types of errors in nursing research journal reference lists.
                A stratified random sample of 262 references from three nursing research journals was obtained. References were compared with the actual articles, books, and chapters cited, or with photocopies obtained via interlibrary loan. Error rates were calculated.
                The overall error rate was 45.8%; 38.3% of all references contained at least one major error, and 13.8% of all references contained at least one minor error.
                The overall rate of reference errors falls within the range exhibited by recent studies of the medical and dental literature but exceeds the rates found in studies of nursing journals and veterinary medicine journals. Researchers need to consider the number and types of errors involved when using reference lists in their research. Several studies have evaluated the accuracy of bibliographic citations in the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 300 reference citations in 10 dental journals. Thirty references were randomly selected from the January 1991 issue of 10 dental journals, for a total of 300 reference citations. Almost all of the citations were verified from the original source; a few were identified from other library sources. Only two references were unable to be identified, and they were both from foreign journals. This survey found 78% (n = 234) of the citations verified (n = 298) to be correct. Results from original studies are not always correctly represented in subsequent medical publications. In this study, randomly selected quotations from Israeli medical journals were examined. Less than 80% of the examined statements were in complete agreement with the original source. In about 7% the cited reference failed to substantiate the previous author's statement. Similar results were found over a range of American and European general and speciality journals. It is concluded that errors in quotation are a widespread problem in the biomedical literature. Editors and peer reviewers can improve quotation accuracy by stressing this issue in decisions regarding publication. Nevertheless, it seems that the most efficient solution would be for authors to increase their vigilance in accurately quoting results and statements from previous publications. Reference lists serve as a resource for the reader and provide support for the author's ideas. Errors in references reflect poorly on the author and journal and may prevent locating the referenced articles. The purpose of this study was to determine the number and types of errors in references in 3 critical care nursing journals: Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, American Journal of Critical Care, and Critical Care Nurse. There were 2,444 citations in 13 issues of these journals during the study period. Ten percent of the references from each journal was selected randomly and analyzed for accuracy. Of the 244 references examined, 56 contained errors for an overall error rate of 22.9%. Major errors, such as misspelled or omitted author names and initials, occurred in 19.6% of the references. Minor errors, including non-first page discrepancies, occurred in 4.5% of the references. Errors in author names combined with incorrect or missing volume or issue numbers were the 2 most common errors, accounting for 61% of errors. The overall error rate for these 3 critical care nursing journals was lower than the rates reported for other nursing journals.
                Copyright 2002 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. This study examined the readability of the AANA Journal, quantifying the effect of peer review on case and research reports published from 1992 to 1994. Gunning and Flesch index-based computer analysis, as well as human comparative analysis, was undertaken. Computer and human assessment of readability revealed improvement as papers evolved from submitted to published versions; however, at publication the manuscripts remained in the "difficult" readability range. Although this study provides evidence that peer review improves readability, it may be that, due to a professed need for scientific purity and an imposed sense of scholarship, nursing and other biomedical journals may overemphasize a style and approach that paradoxically make transfer of information unreasonably difficult. nan We verified a random sample of 50 references in the May 1986 issue of each of three public health journals. Thirty-one per cent of the 150 references had citation errors, one out of 10 being a major error (reference not locatable). Thirty per cent of the references differed from authors' use of them with half being a major error (cited paper not related to author's contention). A previous study indicated that there were many citation errors in the Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia. After this report, editors of the Journal requested any contributors, whose papers were accepted for publication, to verify the accuracy of reference citation by including a photocopy of the first page of each reference. The present study examined if the accuracy of the reference list had improved. We compared citation errors between volumes of 1990 and 1994. One hundred references from each year's publication were randomly selected. After citations of nonjournal articles were excluded, the remaining 190 citations were carefully scrutinized. Authors' names, article title, journal title, volume number, page numbers, and year were examined in each selected reference. A reference was deemed correct if each element of the citation was identical to its source. Of the examined references, 48% and 22% contained one or more errors in 1990 and 1994, respectively. Errors in the title and author field of citation were most common in the either of the two years, occurring in about 70% of the references which contained some errors. Citation errors in Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia were considerably improved after the request to verify citation accuracy. Although this check-system probably contributes to the improvement of accuracy of reference citation, the rate of citation errors remains high. We believe that contributors' efforts will enhance the value of the journal. The high rate of citation errors in bibliographies in medical journals has been a source of concern in recent years. We examined the accuracy of references published during 1 year in two Israeli medical journals. Only two-thirds of the randomly selected references examined were error free; 8% had major errors preventing identification of the cited article. Most of the errors found (76%) were in referencing the author(s) or title of the article. We conclude that errors in citation appear also in Israeli medical journals. Editors should emphasize the importance of reference verification; however, primary responsibility for the accuracy of the reference list rests with the author. Authors should exercise more care in preparing bibliographies and should invest more effort in verification of quoted references. To compare the recall and precision of citation retrieval from MEDLINE when searching in journals containing traditional abstracts with journals containing abstracts prepared according to the guidelines of more informative abstracts (MIAs) for clinical journal articles.
                Analytic survey of operating characteristics of MeSH terms and textwords selected to detect studies meeting basic methodological criteria for direct clinical use in general adult medicine in priority journals with and without MIAs.
                The sensitivity, specificity, and precision of search terms were determined by comparison with a manual review of all articles (the gold standard) in 10 internal and general medicine journals for 1986 and 1991. The performance of each search term was compared before and after the implementation of MIAs and in two journal sets with and without MIAs in 1991.
                The sensitivity of some terms increased with the use of MIAs and also increased by the same amount in journals with usual abstracts in 1991 compared to 1986. The use of MIAs had the greatest impact in the areas of etiology and prognosis. Many MeSH and textwords had comparable performance before and after the implementation of MIAs and between journals with and without MIAs in 1991.
                More informative abstracts improved the retrieval properties of some, but not all, textwords and medical subject headings. Further work may be needed to enhance the effects of MIAs on bibliographic retrieval. To characterize the structured abstracts in biomedical journals indexed in MEDLINE over a three-year period as an initial step in exploring their utility in enhancing bibliographic retrieval.
                The study examined the occurrence of structured abstracts in MEDLINE from March 1989 to December 1991, characteristics of MEDLINE records for articles with structured abstracts, editorial policies of six selected MEDLINE journals on structured abstracts, and a sample of twenty-five structured abstracts from the six journals.
                The study revealed that the number of structured abstracts in MEDLINE and the number of MEDLINE journals publishing structured abstracts increased substantially between 1989 and 1991. On average, articles with structured abstracts had more access points (Medical Subject Heading [MeSH] terms and text words) than MEDLINE articles as a whole. The average length of the structured abstract was greater than the average length of all abstracts in MEDLINE.
                The presence of structured abstracts may be associated with other article characteristics that lead to the assignment of a higher average number of MeSH headings or may itself contribute to the assignment of more headings. The variations in the structured-abstract formats prescribed by different journals may complicate the exploitation of these abstracts in bibliographic retrieval systems. More research is needed on a number of questions related to the quality and utility of structured abstracts. Errors in reference citation and use are common in the medical and scientific literature. The prevalence of such errors in the radiology literature has not been reported. We did a study to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of use of references cited in two general radiology journals.
                All references cited in the June 1993 issues of the American Journal of Roentgenology and Radiology were numbered consecutively. Fifty references were chosen at random from each journal, and copies of the original publications were obtained from the medical library at our institution or through interlibrary loan. Each reference was studied for accuracy and appropriateness of its citation in the June 1993 journal article (the "index article"). Errors were classified as major or minor in each category. Data were analyzed with the SAS statistical package.
                Forty-seven (94%) of 50 references were obtained from AJR, and 48 (96%) of 50 from Radiology. Of the 47 from the AJR, one (2%) had a major error and 21 (45%) had a minor error in accuracy. Of the 48 from Radiology, two (4%) had a major error and 11 (23%) had a minor error in accuracy. These values were significantly different for minor errors (p = .0188), but not for major ones (p = 1.000). When we adjusted for index article type, error rates for the two journals were not significantly different (p = .0612). We found four major errors (9%) and two minor errors (4%) in appropriateness of citation in the AJR references we studied. Three references (6%) from Radiology contained major errors in appropriateness of use; we found no minor errors of that type. These values were not significantly different (p = .232 for minor errors; p = .709 for major errors). One error in accuracy prevented location of the original reference. Errors were not related to the number of references cited in an index article (p = .528 for accuracy; p = .092 for appropriateness).
                The rate of minor errors in accuracy of references is fairly high in the two journals studied and is comparable to rates previously reported for other types of journals. The rate of major errors in accuracy of references is slightly lower than rates for other types of journals. The percentage of cited references that could not be located was also smaller than in previous reports. Errors in citation appropriateness were less common as well. Given the small number of errors that prevented references from being located, significant expenditure of time and money by journal staff members in checking references is probably not justified. However, authors should be encouraged to exercise greater care in checking all of their references for both accuracy and appropriateness of use. Differences in error rates between AJR and Radiology may have resulted in part from the random sampling method, which produced different mixtures of index articles for the two journals. To evaluate the accuracy of bibliographic references in REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA Y REANIMACION (REDAR) and compare it with other Spanish and international journals.
                One hundred references were selected at random from those published in REDAR during 1994. A citation was considered correct if there were no differences between it and the original article in any of 6 standard citation times, and if it complied with REDAR citation style. A citation was considered incorrect if there were in fact differences or if REDAR style was not followed. Errors that interfered with direct access to the original were considered serious. Also considered serious were the omission of the first author.
                Some type of error was detected in 53.9% of the references. Twelve contained a serious error, which on 5 occasions impeded finding the original article and on 6 occasions made direct access difficult. The first author was missing in 1 citation. Errors were found, in order of decreasing frequency, in authors, article titles, journal title, volume, pages and year. A single error was found in 28 citations, 2 were found in 12, 3 were found in 2 and more than 3 were found in 1.
                REDAR's rate of error in references is comparable to the rates of other Spanish journal, but it is nearly double that of international journals in anesthesiology with higher impact factors (Anesthesiology, Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia). An effort must be made by authors and editors to remedy the situation. We analysed the reference error rate of four paediatric journals. The overall rate was 29.7%. Individual rates were as follows: Acta Paediatr 36%, Arch Dis Child 22%, J Pediatr 29%, Pediatrics 32%; the rate of major errors was 1%, 1%, 2%, and 4%, respectively. nan nan nan The accuracy of reference citations in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery was evaluated. All of the references from 1995 (Volume 65) were included (n = 4092).
                A sample of 100 references was randomly selected and examined in detail by comparison with the original references.
                Overall, 60% of citations contained errors. Errors were categorized by dividing references into six elements. A total of 38.8% of citations contained an error in one element, 15.6% contained errors in two elements, 4.4% contained errors in three elements, and 4.4% contained errors in four elements of the reference. The most common errors were errors of authors' names and errors in the title.
                Contributors to this journal should take more care in checking references in the manuscripts before publication. A high rate of errors of citation and quotation has been reported in the publications of many medical specialties. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of citation and quotation errors in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals. A retrospective analysis was performed based on the first issue for 1997 of each of four journals: Laryngoscope; Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology; Clinical Otolaryngyology; and Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A sample of 50 references from each journal was randomly selected and each was checked for accuracy against the original referenced paper. Citation errors were categorized as major, intermediate or minor and quotation errors as major or minor. Citation errors occurred in 37.5% of the references, 11.9% of which were considered major errors. Quotation errors occurred in 17%, with 11.1% major errors. This prevalence is similar to the established error rate in medical literature.
Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously. However there is some evidence that the 'package' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers. A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately.