World Neurosurg. 2022 Jan 24:S1878-8750(22)00083-3. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.070. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: There has been an increasing number of reported errors in neurosurgical publications. Subsequent published correction details in the form of errata and corrigenda has not been analysed previously. Our study aims to review the published errata and corrigenda in neurosurgical literature, and we discuss the characteristics and future implications of post-publication errors.
METHODS: PUBMED and EMBASE databases were screened using a designed search strategy for errata and corrigenda in neurosurgical articles published between 1990 to March 2021. Data including journal impact factor, number of authors and citations, country of origin, study design, level of evidence, category, severity and timing of correction of errors were extracted for summary and analysis.
RESULTS: 768 included articles contributed to 918 error corrections in total. 563(73.31%) articles acknowledged the correction in the original record. Median journal impact factor was 3.114(IQR 2.139). Median correction time was 3(IQR 5) month, with no statistically significant difference in timing of correction across different error severities (Kruskal-Wallis test p=0.058). 398(51.82%) studies were level 3 evidence. Errors with minimal severity most commonly occurred in author list 197(82.43%) with typographical mistake being the predominant cause. Errors with high severity most commonly occurred in the results section. 8(0.87%) errors prompted modification of study conclusions.
CONCLUSION: Observations of post-publication corrections across a wide range of studies prompted more awareness of errors in neurosurgical literature regardless of impact factors and level of evidence. More standardisation in the recognition and acknowledgement of errors, with active engagements from authors, readers, editors and publishers is recommended.
PMID:35085807 | DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.070
