The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals?
Open accessAbstract
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.'
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 Own result · 8 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 No full text of the sources
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of all references, 12% contained errors in these two categories.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and most of the errors would have misled readers.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ofwhich 8% were major errors-that is, they prevented immediate identification of the source of the reference.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The minor errors were in the title of the article or an author's name or initials.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of misquotations in the different journals ranged from 10% to 20% (table).”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roughly one fifth of these were classified as trivial.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The original author was misquoted in 15% of ali references”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“We found misquotations in 15% of all references, some of them trivial.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Errors in citation of references occurred in 24%, ofwhich 8% were major errors-that is, they prevented immediate identification of the source of the reference.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“The overall prevalence of errors of citation was 24%, ranging from 8% to 46%.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the remaining misquotations, roughly half were classified as slightly misleading.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roughly a third of these were major errors, which were in the title of the journal, the volume, or the page numbers.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The incidence of errors of citation varied considerably among the journals, ranging from 8% to 46%.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“The overall prevalence of errors of citation was 24%, ranging from 8% to 46%.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roughly a third of these were major errors, which were in the title of the journal, the volume, or the page numbers.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These figures compare closely with the prevalences of error found by Goodrich and Roland in their report in 1977 assessing 10 different medical journals.5”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Goodrich JE, Roland CG. Accuracy of published medical reference citations. J7ournal of Technical Writing and Communication 1977;7:15-9. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most instances errors were caused by either carelessness or misleading use of language.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the overall prevalence of errors we found is probably an underestimate, as all the journals contained some references that could not be verified (table ).”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Unverifiable references would have contained errors if they could be verified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At an overall prevalence of misquotation of 15% none of the journals we scrutinised need be concerned that this new column would remain empty.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A reference often represented only a minor aspect of a paper, and we did not attempt to record whether an error had a minor or major impact on the overall findings contained in the paper.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for instance, two of the journals in this survey contained over 400 references in their January 1984 issue.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Errors occurred when a reference was not to the original source, and this appeared to be because the original source had not been read.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Results
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A few errors of citation will undoubtedly be due to inaccurate transcription by editorial staff or printers, and this will occur particularly with letters, where proofs are not seen by the author.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“prevalences of error of citation of 24% and over (including one of 46%) might properly give cause for concern regarding the accuracy of other material contained within the papers.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the British Medical 7ournal accepts full responsibility for accuracy of quotations (and we emphasise that we do not think that this is reasonable, let alone manageable) then the position of that journal is unsatisfactory with an error in one out of every five quotations.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These errors are understandable, but virtually all are readily and easily eliminated by careful checking of the final manuscript and galley proofs.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not assess emphasis or arbitrate on differences in interpretation when the differences had been made clear.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course some misquotations classified as seriously misleading might appear to be only slightly so (and vice versa) to another reader, and it would be difficult to eliminate completely such differences in opinion.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifty references for each issue were then selected by random numbers.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A reference often represented only a minor aspect of a paper, and we did not attempt to record whether an error had a minor or major impact on the overall findings contained in the paper.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assessed only whether the findings, claims, or statements in the original work had been referred to accurately.”
§ How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The six selected journals are representative of medical journals generally.
“Six journals were selected.They comprised three general medical journals (the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine); two specialist journals (Clinical Radiology and the British Journal ofSurgery); and a journal with a high proportion ofreview articles”
The paper relies on this without support.
The first issue of each journal published during 1984 is representative of that journal's overall accuracy.
“The first issue of each journal published during 1984 was obtained.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Unverifiable references would have contained errors if they could be verified.
“It should be noted that the overall prevalence of errors we found is probably an underestimate, as all the journals contained some references that could not be verified (table ).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“It is well established that reference inaccuracies are highly prevalent in the peer-reviewed literature, ranging from 4% to 48% of citations [8-11].”
From High Rates of Fabricated and Inaccurate References in ChatGPT-Generated Medical Content (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In the first, and only, systematic investigation of the overall rate of quotation errors representing the general medical literature,[6] the authors estimated that 15% of all cited assertions in published journal articles (including original research articles and literature reviews) were inaccurate.”
From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Notably, de Lacey et al.[6] reported a quotation error rate of 14.4% (in original research articles), which is very close to the rate 14.5% calculated in the primary analysis here.”
From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The primary reason for including the de Lacey et al. study[6] representing the broad medical field was because that was only study that examined quotation errors in the major general medical journals (BMJ, the Lancet, the NEJM) and the study might be viewed as a focused study of quotation error rates in general medical journals.”
From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A secondary reason was to partially weight the overall mean of quotation errors towards the rate reported in the only study designed to estimate the rate of quotation errors throughout the medical field.”
From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Major and minor errors are not always defined the same among studies, but the intention of the distinction between major and minor errors remains the same (i.e.whether an error makes finding an original source difficult to find).”
From Reference accuracy of primary studies published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as de Lacey et al., 1985
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“De Lacey et al. reported substantial error rates in major medical journals [2].”
From Systematic review and meta-analysis of quotation inaccuracy in medicine (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The estimated rate reported here, 14.5%, which spans nearly 25 years of data, is notably similar to the 14.4% quotation error rate reported[6] in a sample from 1984 (after excluding the data from the journal selected to include a high number of review articles).”
From Accuracy of cited "facts" in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate (2017) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There is consensus that authors are primarily responsible for the accuracy of their reference lists (de Lacey et al., 1985;Foreman and Kirchhoff, 1987;Place, 1916;Poyer, 1979;Putterman and Lossos, 1991;White, 1987a).”
From Reference accuracy of primary studies published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as de Lacey et al., 1985
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In their study of the accuracy of quotations and references in medical journals, de Lacey and colleagues found a 15% misquotation rate, 4”
From Manuscript Referencing Errors and Their Impact on Shaping Current Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“erroneous or inaccurate quotations, if continually repeated, may turn inaccuracies into conventional knowledge. 4”
From Manuscript Referencing Errors and Their Impact on Shaping Current Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Depending on the field and the methodology, most analyses of the problem reveal that between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 citations are used to support claims incongruous with the results of the cited paper (refs. 74-76 and references therein).”
From Misinformation in and about science (2021) · cites this paper as [76]
In the citing paper
“The significance of these misquotes ranged from 'trivial' to 'seriously misleading,' with all six highly regarded journals included in this analysis having published from two to five seriously misleading quotations in 50 randomly selected articles. 4”
From Manuscript Referencing Errors and Their Impact on Shaping Current Evidence (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cites
An investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations
Broadus, R. N. (1983) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630340206 · Cited by 63
(1977) · PubMed · Cited by 44
Accuracy of Published Medical Reference Citations
Goodrich, J. E., & Roland, C. G. (1977) · Journal of Technical Writing and Communication · doi:10.2190/2b2a-f34l-0txg-wnq7 · Cited by 34
Issenman, J., Nolan, M. F., Rowley, J., et al. (1985) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/65.10.1517 · Cited by 19
Relman, A. S. (1983) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198305193082009 · Cited by 13
Thoughts About Medical Writing XXXVII. Verify Your References
Roland, C. G. (1976) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/00000539-197609000-00023 · Cited by 8
Lock, S. (1985) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.290.6482.1609 · Cited by 7
MEDICAL REPORTING IN THE LAY PRESS
Proudfoot, A. D., & Proudfoot, J. (1981) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1981.tb135276.x · Cited by 6
Techniques of online citation verification in NLM databases
McKinn, E. J., & Johnson, E. D. (1983) · Medical Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1300/j115v02n03_01 · Cited by 4
(1983) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198305193082020 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Place F. Verify your references: a word to medical writers. New York Medical Journal 1916;104:697-9.
- Dobell C. Dr 0 Uplavici (1887-1938). Parasitology 1938;30:23941.
- Journal, "Pain in the ear-a presenting symptom of aortic dissection," which pointed out that the auricular nerve was a branch of the vagus. I2 My patient's gastrointestinal troubles were possibly due to implication of this nerve. Before dissection he used to talk of his wandering "hemicrania," but when no explanation could be found he began to suspect his doctors believed he was getting neurotic. Now, however, after hearing of theBMJ reports, he thinks that there should be some type of medical enigma machine to decode such a gallimaufry of symptoms as he has presented.-L S LEWIS, general practitioner, Wales.
- BrewsterMF. Pain intheear-apresentingsymptom ofaorticdissection. BrMedJ 1985;290: 1517.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Misinformation in and about science
West, J. D., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912444117 · Cited by 391
High Rates of Fabricated and Inaccurate References in ChatGPT-Generated Medical Content
Bhattacharyya, M., Miller, V. M., Bhattacharyya, D., & Miller, L. E. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.39238 · Cited by 294
Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
da Costa, B. R., Cevallos, M., Altman, D. G., Rutjes, A. W., & Egger, M. (2011) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048 · Cited by 288
Nicolaisen, J. (2007) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410120 · Cited by 309
Wyatt, J. C. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)92245-w · Cited by 197
Metadata
- Authors
- de Lacey, G., Record, C., & Wade, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1985-09-28
- Volume
- 291
- Issue
- 6499
- Pages
- 884-886
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0267-0623
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2009777888
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 48.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- quotation errors, citation errors, medical journals, citation accuracy, misquotation, scientific integrity, editorial quality control
- MeSH terms
- Information Services, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
