Cargando…
Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review
OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the prevalence of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews, their potential value to reviews, and their accessibility via standard information retrieval methods. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of inc...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medical Library Association
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019387 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.629 |
_version_ | 1783411122376802304 |
---|---|
author | Farrah, Kelly Rabb, Danielle |
author_facet | Farrah, Kelly Rabb, Danielle |
author_sort | Farrah, Kelly |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the prevalence of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews, their potential value to reviews, and their accessibility via standard information retrieval methods. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of included studies from forty systematic reviews of drugs evaluated by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2015. For each article that was included in the systematic reviews, we conducted searches for associated errata using the CDR review report, PubMed, and the journal publishers’ websites. The severity of errors described in errata was evaluated using a three-category scale: trivial, minor, or major. The accessibility of errata was determined by examining inclusion in bibliographic databases, costs of obtaining errata, time lag between article and erratum publication, and correction of online articles. RESULTS: The 40 systematic reviews included 127 articles in total, for which 26 errata were identified. These errata described 38 errors. When classified by severity, 6 errors were major; 20 errors were minor; and 12 errors were trivial. No one database contained all the errata. On average, errata were published 211 days after the original article (range: 15–1,036 days). All were freely available. Over one-third (9/24) of online articles were uncorrected after errata publication. CONCLUSION: Errata frequently described non-trivial errors that would either impact the interpretation of data in the article or, in fewer cases, impact the conclusions of the study. As such, it seems useful for reviewers to identify errata associated with included studies. However, publication time lag and inconsistent database indexing impair errata accessibility. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6466495 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Medical Library Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64664952019-04-24 Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review Farrah, Kelly Rabb, Danielle J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the prevalence of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews, their potential value to reviews, and their accessibility via standard information retrieval methods. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of included studies from forty systematic reviews of drugs evaluated by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR) in 2015. For each article that was included in the systematic reviews, we conducted searches for associated errata using the CDR review report, PubMed, and the journal publishers’ websites. The severity of errors described in errata was evaluated using a three-category scale: trivial, minor, or major. The accessibility of errata was determined by examining inclusion in bibliographic databases, costs of obtaining errata, time lag between article and erratum publication, and correction of online articles. RESULTS: The 40 systematic reviews included 127 articles in total, for which 26 errata were identified. These errata described 38 errors. When classified by severity, 6 errors were major; 20 errors were minor; and 12 errors were trivial. No one database contained all the errata. On average, errata were published 211 days after the original article (range: 15–1,036 days). All were freely available. Over one-third (9/24) of online articles were uncorrected after errata publication. CONCLUSION: Errata frequently described non-trivial errors that would either impact the interpretation of data in the article or, in fewer cases, impact the conclusions of the study. As such, it seems useful for reviewers to identify errata associated with included studies. However, publication time lag and inconsistent database indexing impair errata accessibility. Medical Library Association 2019-04 2019-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6466495/ /pubmed/31019387 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.629 Text en Copyright: © 2019, Authors. Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Farrah, Kelly Rabb, Danielle Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title | Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title_full | Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title_fullStr | Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title_full_unstemmed | Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title_short | Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
title_sort | errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019387 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.629 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farrahkelly erratafortrialpublicationsarenotuncommonarefrequentlynottrivialandcanbechallengingtoaccessaretrospectivereview AT rabbdanielle erratafortrialpublicationsarenotuncommonarefrequentlynottrivialandcanbechallengingtoaccessaretrospectivereview |