User login
Credit: CDC/James Gathany
A review of errata reports from medical publications revealed that nearly a quarter of the errors may have changed the way study data were interpreted.
And about half of the errors were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
This suggests authors and journals must be more vigilant and consistent in identifying and reporting errors, said Paul Hauptman, MD, of Saint Louis University in Missouri.
He and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in The American Journal of Medicine.
The researchers reviewed 20 prominent English language journals in the fields of general medicine and cardiology. And they identified 577 error reports over an 18-month period.
More than 24% of these reports included an error the team rated as major. Major errors were associated with material changes in the interpretation of data in text, figures, or tables, or with significant alterations in the article’s conclusions.
One of the examples of a major error report in the study comes from a paper about depression. In the original article, the incidence of new depression cases was misquoted by a factor of 10. The article initially reported 15.8% of women with new depression, rather than the real figure of 1.58%, which was later corrected.
“As the volume of research publications continues to rise, the scientific community needs to examine how it manages its mistakes,” said Eric Armbrecht, PhD, of the Saint Louis University Center for Outcomes Research.
“Transparency, consistency, and clarity are essential. Our study found that these are not common among some of the top medical journals.”
In fact, the researchers found that 51% of the errors they identified were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
The team noted that this study did not provide any definitive explanations for why such errors appear in publications, although one possibility is that most authors don’t read and edit the final version of their manuscripts prior to publication.
“It’s noteworthy that although final approval of an article may fall to the first or corresponding author, the criteria put forth by [the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] specifies that each author must provide final approval of the version to be published,” Dr Hauptman said.
He added that, at this point, it’s not possible to measure how frequently a journal reader incorporates errata into clinical care or the extent to which patient outcomes may be affected. 
Credit: CDC/James Gathany
A review of errata reports from medical publications revealed that nearly a quarter of the errors may have changed the way study data were interpreted.
And about half of the errors were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
This suggests authors and journals must be more vigilant and consistent in identifying and reporting errors, said Paul Hauptman, MD, of Saint Louis University in Missouri.
He and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in The American Journal of Medicine.
The researchers reviewed 20 prominent English language journals in the fields of general medicine and cardiology. And they identified 577 error reports over an 18-month period.
More than 24% of these reports included an error the team rated as major. Major errors were associated with material changes in the interpretation of data in text, figures, or tables, or with significant alterations in the article’s conclusions.
One of the examples of a major error report in the study comes from a paper about depression. In the original article, the incidence of new depression cases was misquoted by a factor of 10. The article initially reported 15.8% of women with new depression, rather than the real figure of 1.58%, which was later corrected.
“As the volume of research publications continues to rise, the scientific community needs to examine how it manages its mistakes,” said Eric Armbrecht, PhD, of the Saint Louis University Center for Outcomes Research.
“Transparency, consistency, and clarity are essential. Our study found that these are not common among some of the top medical journals.”
In fact, the researchers found that 51% of the errors they identified were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
The team noted that this study did not provide any definitive explanations for why such errors appear in publications, although one possibility is that most authors don’t read and edit the final version of their manuscripts prior to publication.
“It’s noteworthy that although final approval of an article may fall to the first or corresponding author, the criteria put forth by [the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] specifies that each author must provide final approval of the version to be published,” Dr Hauptman said.
He added that, at this point, it’s not possible to measure how frequently a journal reader incorporates errata into clinical care or the extent to which patient outcomes may be affected.
Credit: CDC/James Gathany
A review of errata reports from medical publications revealed that nearly a quarter of the errors may have changed the way study data were interpreted.
And about half of the errors were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
This suggests authors and journals must be more vigilant and consistent in identifying and reporting errors, said Paul Hauptman, MD, of Saint Louis University in Missouri.
He and his colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in The American Journal of Medicine.
The researchers reviewed 20 prominent English language journals in the fields of general medicine and cardiology. And they identified 577 error reports over an 18-month period.
More than 24% of these reports included an error the team rated as major. Major errors were associated with material changes in the interpretation of data in text, figures, or tables, or with significant alterations in the article’s conclusions.
One of the examples of a major error report in the study comes from a paper about depression. In the original article, the incidence of new depression cases was misquoted by a factor of 10. The article initially reported 15.8% of women with new depression, rather than the real figure of 1.58%, which was later corrected.
“As the volume of research publications continues to rise, the scientific community needs to examine how it manages its mistakes,” said Eric Armbrecht, PhD, of the Saint Louis University Center for Outcomes Research.
“Transparency, consistency, and clarity are essential. Our study found that these are not common among some of the top medical journals.”
In fact, the researchers found that 51% of the errors they identified were not corrected in the original text, or the errata report did not specify whether a correction was made.
The team noted that this study did not provide any definitive explanations for why such errors appear in publications, although one possibility is that most authors don’t read and edit the final version of their manuscripts prior to publication.
“It’s noteworthy that although final approval of an article may fall to the first or corresponding author, the criteria put forth by [the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] specifies that each author must provide final approval of the version to be published,” Dr Hauptman said.
He added that, at this point, it’s not possible to measure how frequently a journal reader incorporates errata into clinical care or the extent to which patient outcomes may be affected.