ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2012
Postpublication errors in imaging-related journals.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics.Systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Error publication (published erratum) in neurosurgical journals worldwide using PubMed during the last 30 years.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Article
- Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAssessment of postpublication errors in peer-reviewed journals is difficult and the numbers and types are unknown. We reviewed published errata in major clinical imaging journals in an attempt to understand the numbers and sources of errors in published articles. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive clinical imaging journals with the highest IFs were searched on-line using the terms "erratum" or "errata" anywhere in the title, abstract, or author listing for a total of 5 years. Each erratum was reviewed and categorized by type and source of responsibility.
resultsThe following journals were assessed: JNM, Radiology, AJNR, AJR, and RadioGraphics. There were a total of 158 total errata and each was placed in 1 of the following categories: typographical (94), factual (6), image-related (48), statistical calculation (7), or serious foundational errors (3). Errata were also labeled as author (107) or journal responsibility (51). One hundred forty-eight errata were categorized as minor (typographical, factual, and image-related) and 10 as major (statistical calculation, foundational errors).
conclusionsAnalysis of the 8910 articles published by the 5 journals during the study period, revealed the number of minor and major errors were few, 1.66% and 0.11%, respectively. Of these errors, 93.7% were considered minor and 6.3% major. Most major errors were judged to be the responsibility of the authors, whereas most minor ones were the responsibility of the journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.