Case study in major quotation errors: a critical commentary on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2018, Pages 1025-1031

  Stang, Andreas ^a,b   Jonas, Stephan ^c   Poole, Charles ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

BIBLIOGRAPHY AS TOPIC; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85053866100     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-018-0443-3     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfordasp. 2009
2. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JBT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions, version 510 (updated March 2011). www.handbook.cochrane.org: The cochrane collaboration. 2011
3. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii–173
4. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5
5. Lee SY, Lee JS. A survey of quotation accuracy in two Korean dermatological journals. Ann Dermatol. 1995;7:236–9
6. de Lacey G, Record C, Wade J. How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291:884–6
7. Eichorn P, Yankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1011–2
8. Evans JT, Nadjari HI, Burchell SA. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem. JAMA. 1990;263:1353–4
9. Tfelt-Hansen P. The qualitative problem of major quotation errors, as illustrated by 10 different examples in the headache literature. Headache. 2015;55:419–26
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
11. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88
12. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions, version 510 (updated March 2011). www.handbook.cochrane.org: The cochrane collaboration. 2011
13. Garvin DA. What does product quality really mean? Sloan Manag Rev. 1984;26:25–43
14. Dickie G. Aesthetics: an introduction. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.; 1971
15. On Gerwitz P. I know it when I see it. Yale Law J. 1996;105:1023–47
16. Crosby PB. Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1979
17. Broh RA. Managing quality for higher profits. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982
18. Kuehn AA, Day RL. Strategy of product quality. Harv Bus Rev. 1962;40:100–10
19. Rodgers A, MacMahon S. Systematic underestimation of treatment effects as a result of diagnostic test inaccuracy: implications for the interpretation and design of thromboprophylaxis trials. Thromb Haemost. 1995;73:167–71
20. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 510 (updated March 2011). www.handbook.cochrane.de: The cochrane collaboration. 2011
21. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading—Reply to Re—a critical-look at some popular analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:300–1
22. Greenland S, O’Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics. 2001;2:463–71
23. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;44:166–203
24. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054–60
25. Rubin DR. Meta-analysis: literature synthesis or effect-size surface estimation? J Educ Stat. 1992;17:363–74
26. Lash TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009
27. Ebert CS Jr, Drake AF. The impact of sleep-disordered breathing on cognition and behavior in children: a review and meta-synthesis of the literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;131:814–26