Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35281707›Full record

ReviewJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Reference Hygiene and Death on the Internet - Decay, Rot, Half-Life, Deterioration, and Corruption.

Douglas E Ott

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Douglas E OttSchool of Engineering, Mercer University, Macon, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: References for medical articles are not always retrievable. This eliminates the ability to check on the validity of statements, methodologies, data collection, and conclusions. Methods: References of review, scientific, and research articles published in the 2019 and 2020 Results: Ninety-five articles with 2,424 references were evaluated. There were 1,025 (1,025/2,424 = 42.3%) open access versus 1,399 (1,399/2,424 = 47.7%) paywall articles. There were 357 (14.7%) citations unavailable (misreference) due to bad, broken, or nonexistent links and wrong article, abstract or citation only, and missing citations. Conclusion: Loss of reference existence or retrievability is a scientific hazard. Science is self-correcting but is doomed to not knowing what was said or discovered when references are no longer available.

Indexed as

HygieneInternetHalf-LifeHumansCitationLink rotReferences

Identifiers

PMID35281707
PMCPMC8896816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.