Errata in medical publications.

BACKGROUND Information is limited about the communication of corrections or errors in the medical literature; therefore, we sought to determine the frequency and significance of published errata in high impact factor journals. METHODS Retrospective evaluation of errata reports for articles published in 20 English-language general medicine and cardiovascular journals (mean impact factor, 12.23; median, 5.52) over 18 months. Each independently adjudicated erratum was categorized by location in the article and qualitative categories of severity. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were computed to describe the association between author and errata number. Source of error, association between impact factor and errata occurrence, and errata rate by journal were assessed. RESULTS A total of 557 articles were associated with errata reports (overall errata report occurrence 4.2 per 100 published original and review articles; mean of 2.4 errors per errata report). At least 1 major error that materially altered data interpretation was present in 24.2% of articles with errata. There was a strong association between impact factor and errata occurrence rate (rho = 0.869, P < .001). Across all errata, 51.0% were not corrected or the report did not specify whether a correction was made. CONCLUSIONS The reporting of errata across journals lacks uniformity. Despite published criteria for authorship that mandate final approval of the manuscript by all authors, errors are frequent, including those that may materially change the interpretation of data. Increased vigilance by authors to prevent errata and consensus by journal editors on the format of reporting are warranted.

[1]  D. Altman,et al.  Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. , 2011, JAMA.

[2]  D A Savitz,et al.  What can we infer from author order in epidemiology? , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[3]  Pamela Royle,et al.  Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata? , 2004, Health information and libraries journal.

[4]  Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al.  The ethics of collaborative authorship. More realistic standards and better accountability are needed to enhance scientific publication and give credit where it is due. , 2011 .

[5]  Veronica Yank,et al.  Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet , 1999 .

[6]  John R. Wilson.  Rhetorical techniques used in the reporting of cardiac resynchronization trials. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  S M Ahmed,et al.  A method for assigning authorship in multiauthored publications. , 1997, Family medicine.

[8]  黄亚明（整理）,et al.  ICMJE , 2012 .

[9]  Lucas D. Eggert.  Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[10]  W. Kraus,et al.  Method for Establishing Authorship in a Multicenter Clinical Trial , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  M. Shapiro,et al.  The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. , 1994, JAMA.

[12]  A. Flanagin,et al.  Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  E. Lautenbach,et al.  "Equal" contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. , 2010, Annals of epidemiology.

[15]  Monica Gori,et al.  Cross-Sensory Facilitation Reveals Neural Interactions between Visual and Tactile Motion in Humans , 2011, Front. Psychology.