Abstract
To assess the frequency and propagation rate of published errors in the oncology literature and to determine possible contributing factors. We reviewed 10 major oncology journals to determine variability in the online presentation of errata. Canadian oncologists were surveyed regarding characteristics that may influence error propagation. Errors published during 2004-2007 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (jco) and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (jnci) were classified as trivial or serious (that is, whether change in outcome was involved). The frequency of citation and error propagation was determined for serious errors. Of the 10 journals reviewed, 9 present links from the original article to the erratum; in 4 of those 9 journals, at least 1 link was missing. Survey results indicate that 33% of oncologists do not read errata, and 45% have read only the abstract when referencing an article. Although 59% of oncologists have noticed errors in cancer publications, only 13% reported the error. Together, jco and jnci published 190 errata, for an error rate of 4% ± 1% (standard deviation) annually; 26 of 190 errors were serious (14%). The median time from publication of the article to the corresponding erratum was 3.5 months for trivial errors as compared with 8.3 months for serious errors (p = 0.03). Error propagation in citations before and after publication of the erratum was 15% and 2% respectively (p < 0.01). Error rates in high-impact oncology journals average 4%, which is likely an underestimate, because errors noticed by readers are not consistently reported. Propagation of serious errors decreases, but still continues, after publication of errata.
Highlights
The publication of scholarly articles is an essential component of scientific inquiry, and it occurs at a staggering rate
Error propagation in citations before and after publication of the erratum was 15% and 2% respectively (p < 0.01)
Error rates in high-impact oncology journals average 4%, which is likely an underestimate, because errors noticed by readers are not consistently reported
Summary
The publication of scholarly articles is an essential component of scientific inquiry, and it occurs at a staggering rate. Increased publication rates are accompanied by an increased potential for error, and unintentional dissemination of errors may have ramifications for patient care (such as incorrect drug dosing, or dissemination of incorrect survival, toxicity, or response information), in oncology, in which much clinical practice is evidence-based. There is a paucity of literature investigating the frequency, notification, and propagation of published errors ( known as errata, corrigenda, or corrections). 17% of the errata were deemed “crucial,” in that they consisted of incorrect drug doses or incorrect formulas. A more recent study by Royle and Waugh estimated that 5% of published errors in randomized controlled trials had the potential to affect the conclusions of a meta-analysis or systematic review 3
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
