title: Experience, expertise, or specialty? Uses and misuses of a reference.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To analyze systematically the manner in which the results of a published study are presented in subsequent publications that refer to it.
  
  
  METHODS
  We identified a convenience sample of 121 scientific papers that referred to an often-cited 1996 study by Kitahata and colleagues. This study reported that greater primary care physician experience with AIDS was associated with lower mortality among their patients with AIDS.
  
  
  METHODS
  We determined the manner in which the results of the Kitahata and coworkers study were presented, the type of article, and whether its focus was on HIV care.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Most of the articles reviewed (78%) appropriately referred to the study as evidence of improved outcomes with increasing provider experience. However, 8% of the articles reviewed referred to the study as evidence of improved outcomes with specialty care and 3% referred to it as evidence of the benefits of expert care. Articles that referred to the study as evidence of improved outcomes with specialty care were more likely to be review articles and articles with a non-HIV focus.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study demonstrates that misrepresentation of the findings of published studies is not uncommon. More needs to be done to ensure the accuracy of references in scientific publications.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. drastega@jhmi.edu
authors.forename: Darius A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Rastegar
authors.forename: Leah
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Wolfe
mesh_terms: D001319:Authorship; D015706:Bibliometrics; D015658:HIV Infections / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008511:Medicine; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D011320:Primary Health Care; D011643:Publishing; D013038:Specialization