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

@MaartenvSmeden Just leaving this beauty here https://t.co/DZjPDLXcw5. If you want to lose all faith, have a look at how this paper has been cited since.

@MaartenvSmeden @dingding_peng My favourite for this in my field (SR) is Stang 2010, that criticises the validity of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, being repeatedly cited by SRs as a justification for use of NOS. They investigated the frequency of this in 201

Case study in major quotation errors: a critical commentary on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (2018) : Andreas Stang and Stephan Jonas and Charles Poole DOI: https://t.co/KRYPww7mcx # #my_bibtex

RT @CraigSL01: Help me out twitter, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in systematic reviews - good idea or there are better resources out there? h…

Help me out twitter, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in systematic reviews - good idea or there are better resources out there? https://t.co/sWFuXMiw3r https://t.co/dG2PoS23Bu

@MrJaniR In case you are not already familiar with this. https://t.co/KMnlhDPLOu

@MBarany Just hope that miscitation doesn’t cascade... https://t.co/H6epJPuTdl

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

Another example of quotation errors is given by @stangandreas and colleagues in 2018. Case study in major quotation errors: a critical commentary on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. - PubMed - NCBI https://t.co/RGB35HO8T2

RT @paul_msg: I've noticed this on many occasions with submitted SRs, that an author uses a critique to support use of a risk of bias tool.…

RT @paul_msg: I've noticed this on many occasions with submitted SRs, that an author uses a critique to support use of a risk of bias tool.…

I knew this, but I'm still shocked. Also should go without saying, but: "Authors should read each source they cite to make sure their direct and indirect quotations are accurate." #medlibs

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

RT @paul_msg: I've noticed this on many occasions with submitted SRs, that an author uses a critique to support use of a risk of bias tool.…

RT @MaartenvSmeden: Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing https://t.co/2ilf15O2Dc

Choose your titles wisely, it is the *only* thing 98% will read before citing

RT @paul_msg: I've noticed this on many occasions with submitted SRs, that an author uses a critique to support use of a risk of bias tool.…

I've noticed this on many occasions with submitted SRs, that an author uses a critique to support use of a risk of bias tool. It's ridiculous - but I had no idea just how ridiculous until Stang et al. themselves had a look... https://t.co/WiBsx48GVc https:

@stangandreas wrote a citation classic about the drawbacks of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which was intended to rate the quality of epidemiologic studies. Apparently, 98% of the citations took it to be promoting rather than criticizing the NOS. htt

“Authors should read each source they cite to make sure their direct and indirect quotations are accurate. Reviewers and editors should do a better job of checking citations and quotations for accuracy” https://t.co/287Nr96P0J

RT @stangandreas: #GMDSeV Do meta-analysts read the literature carefully that they cite? See the Newcastle-Ottawa disaster https://t.co/F…

RT @stangandreas: #GMDSeV Do meta-analysts read the literature carefully that they cite? See the Newcastle-Ottawa disaster https://t.co/F…

#GMDSeV Do meta-analysts read the literature carefully that they cite? See the Newcastle-Ottawa disaster https://t.co/FIzEHGS1Pz