Clinical research study| Volume 127, ISSUE 8, P779-785.e1, August 2014

Errata in Medical Publications



      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.


      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.


      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.


      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.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Beller E.M.
        • Glasziou P.P.
        • Hopewell S.
        • Altman D.G.
        Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews.
        JAMA. 2011; 306: 1981-1982
        • Wilson J.R.
        Rhetorical techniques used in the reporting of cardiac resynchronization trials.
        Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 1500-1502
      1. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at: Accessed January 10, 2014.

        • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
        The ethics of collaborative authorship.
        EMBO Rep. 2011; 12: 889-893
        • Yank V.
        • Rennie D.
        Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in the Lancet.
        Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130: 661-670
        • Lok A.S.
        Authorship: who should be included and how should it be determined?.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 141: 786-788
        • Zeyfert M.
        Impact Factor: A Guide for Editors and Editorial Boards.
        Oxford University Press, Oxford2009
      2. ISI Web of Knowledge Database – Journal Citation Reports, a database product of Thompson Reuters and accessed through the Saint Louis University library subscription. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2013.

        • Royle P.
        • Waugh N.
        Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata?.
        Health Info Libr J. 2004; 21: 14-20
        • Molckovsky A.
        • Vickers M.M.
        • Tang P.A.
        Characterization of published errors in high impact oncology journals.
        Curr Oncol. 2011; 18: 26-32
        • Trikalinos T.A.
        Does it mean anything if your own name is wrong in your published paper?.
        FASEB J. 2009; 23: 2345-2348
        • Akhabue E.
        • Lautenbach E.
        “Equal” contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship.
        Ann Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 868-871
        • Savitz D.A.
        What can we infer from author order in epidemiology?.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 149: 401-403
        • Wislar J.S.
        • Flanagin A.
        • Fontanarosa P.B.
        • DeAngelis C.D.
        Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey.
        BMJ. 2011; 343: d6128
        • Whellan D.J.
        • Ellis S.J.
        • Kraus W.E.
        • et al.
        Method for establishing authorship in a multi center clinical trial.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 414-420
        • Shapiro D.W.
        • Wenger N.S.
        • Shapiro M.F.
        The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers.
        JAMA. 1994; 271: 438-442
        • Ahmed S.M.
        • Maurana C.A.
        • Engle J.A.
        • Uddin D.E.
        • Glaus K.D.
        A method for assigning authorship in multiauthored publications.
        Fam Med. 1997; 29: 42-44
        • Eggert L.D.
        Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles.
        Front Psychol. 2011; 2: 1-6