ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2026
Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith the growing volume of scientific publications in recent years, both unintentional errors and instances of scientific misconduct have become increasingly common. These errors may include typographical mistakes, inaccuracies in author information, and issues in figures, tables, references, or other sections of articles. This study aims to identify and categorize the most frequent errors in rheumatology publications instead of to provide insights for improving the accuracy and credibility of scientific literature.
methodsArticles published and subsequently corrected in the field of rheumatology between 2000 and 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. A total of 1,716 corrected articles were systematically analyzed for the type, frequency, and severity of errors.
resultsA total of 1,825 errors were identified, with 36 articles requiring major corrections. The most frequently affected sections included author names and institutional affiliations (644 errors), tables and figures (537 errors), and the results section (164 errors), followed by funding statements, materials and methods, and references. Less frequent issues included errors related to ethics approval, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and incorrect data. Proportion of articles with major corrections (36 out of 1,716; 2.1%), 19 of them were retracted and the relative distribution of error types (e.g., author information errors constituted 35.2% of total errors).
conclusionsAuthors, editors, and publishers share responsibility for maintaining the integrity of published research. Sections such as author information, tables, figures, and results are shown to be at high risk for errors. Careful review and editorial oversight can minimize errors, prevent misinterpretation, and enhance the overall reliability of scientific publications. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.