Abstract
Currently, published systematic review protocols (SR protocols) have increasingly become a new trend in fields such as acupuncture and are therefore a new source of quotations in these fields. Systematic reviews are considered the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid as they embody comprehensive literature searching. Quotations are key elements to achieve this goal as they can support the assertions of the original authors, but the ‘misquotation’ exists, too, and they can be misleading to the reader. The aim of this study was to examine the quotation accuracy of SR protocols in a meta-analysis on acupuncture research. We searched SCOPUS through 31 December, 2020, and each protocol and its citations were analyzed and classified as correct or incorrect. We used descriptive statistics to report the quotation errors and characteristics of the included protocols. The results showed 248 SR protocols, where 124 protocols received quotations and 38 quotations (31.4%) were erroneous. Only 11 (4.4%) of the published SRs and SR protocols had been published previously. Furthermore, the scientific journal in which the most SR protocols were published was Medicine (193; 77.8%), followed by BMJ Open (39; 15.7%). Authors from China (86.5%) were the most productive in publishing SRs and SR protocols. Finally, we concluded that the number of SR protocols and meta-analyses published in scientific journals and indexed by databases exceeds the publication capacity of the SRs associated with them, generating scientific literature that does not make any novel contribution to knowledge.
Highlights
The description of the research reported in any field is a cornerstone of the robustness and credibility of its published literature [1]
Previous studies have explored through different approaches the extent to which citations in the scientific literature in health sciences support the assertions of the original authors or whether they are inaccurate [3]
Earlier studies in the 1980s reported that the original author was misquoted in up to 15% of cited studies conducted in health sciences and that such errors were so substantial that readers were misled by them
Summary
The description of the research reported in any field is a cornerstone of the robustness and credibility of its published literature [1]. Quotations are an inherent and key element of scientific literature Most often, they confirm authors’ assertions or point to research that is relevant to the reader’s knowledge of a manuscript, allowing them to fully contextualize the manuscript. Previous studies have explored through different approaches the extent to which citations in the scientific literature in health sciences support the assertions of the original authors or whether they are inaccurate [3]. In these studies, quote accuracy involves subjectively verifying whether the results of other studies or the statements of other authors are accurately reflected in the articles citing these “quotes” [4]. Earlier studies in the 1980s reported that the original author was misquoted in up to 15% of cited studies conducted in health sciences and that such errors were so substantial that readers were misled by them
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
