Printer Friendly

Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION

It is uncertain how often errata for study publications contain information that is valuable for systematic reviews and whether they are retrieved through typical systematic review literature search methods. An erratum is a published note that corrects one or more errors or omissions in an earlier published journal article [1]. Previous studies examining the content of errata have found that the majority of errors reported are minor or trivial mistakes, while a smaller portion describe more serious errors that would affect the interpretation of the study results. Estimates of the proportion of significant errors ranges from 6% [2] to 14% [3] to 24% [4], although these studies differed in how they defined "major" errors as well as in the number and type of journals they included. According to one study, major errors are propagated in other publications, albeit at a lower rate, even after errata have been issued [3].

We identified only 1 previous study that considered errata in the context of systematic reviews [5]. Royle and Waugh concluded that although only 5% of the errata in their study contained information that could change the conclusions of a meta-analysis, most errata would be useful for reviewers in order to facilitate their analyses of the articles' data [5]. Because their sample consisted of 100 randomized controlled trials already known to have errata, not trials drawn from systematic reviews, the authors were unable to determine the prevalence of errata associated with studies that are included in systematic reviews. A further limitation to that study is that it relied on a single bibliographic database to identify errata.

There is little research on the identification and retrieval of errata. The Cochrane Handbook discusses searching for errata when updating a systematic review in section 6.4.10, "Identifying fraudulent studies, other retracted publications, errata and comments" [6]. It recommends searching for the most recent MEDLINE citation for all included studies in the earlier review to identify errata that may have been subsequently published [6]. MEDLINE and other biomedical databases can either index published errata as separate database records, link the separate erratum record to the original article record, update the original article record to note that an erratum has been issued, or take a combination of these actions. However, indexing of errata may not be complete [4]. For example, in order for an erratum to be included in MEDLINE, "the erratum must appear on a numbered page in an issue of the journal that published the original article" [1]. Further, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) does not assign Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in MEDLINE to errata records [1], which could make them more challenging to identify.

The objectives of this study were: (1) to estimate the frequency of errata for drug trial publications that are included in systematic reviews conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review (CDR), (2) to evaluate the errata's potential impact on reviews by rating the severity of errors they describe, and (3) to determine whether errata are accessible to reviewers through standard systematic review searching methods.

METHODS

Systematic reviews and included studies

The authors conducted a retrospective review of the included studies from forty systematic reviews of drugs evaluated by CADTH's CDR in 2015. A full list of the analyzed reviews is provided in the supplemental appendix. For each systematic review, we extracted all unique journal articles from the included studies list.

Errata identification

For each unique journal article identified in the reviews' included study lists, we conducted a search for associated errata using three sources:

1. Errata identified in the CDR reviews: We scanned the publicly accessible CDR clinical review reports to determine any errata that were identified as part of the review process. The reviews involve a systematic literature search. Additionally, as part of the CDR process, manufacturers are required to identify trials and associated publications for the drug under review, as well as any errata related to these publications.

2. PubMed for linked errata: We used variants of author names and publication titles in the PubMed advanced search to identify records for each of the included journal articles. We then scanned the PubMed record for each article to identify information on any associated errata.

3. The journal publisher's website: We searched for variants of author names and publication titles in the appropriate journal's website for each article. We scanned these results and the page including the original article to identify information on any associated errata.

For the purposes of this study, we defined an erratum as a published notice correcting an error (or errors) in a previously published journal article [1]. Consistent with NLM, we made no distinction between the terms: errata, corrections, or corrigenda [1]. Accordingly, we included errors regardless of whether they occurred during the publication process or were made by the article authors.

Errata frequency

We determined the frequency of errata for the published articles that were included in the systematic reviews using the total number of errata identified divided by the total number of journal articles on the included study lists.

Errors and error severity

We tabulated the total number of unique errors in each erratum. One erratum could report on multiple errors. We evaluated the severity of each error using a three-category scale:

* Major: Error impacts the analysis or interpretation of a primary outcome and, subsequently, the conclusions of the study.

* Minor: Error impacts the analysis or interpretation of an outcome of the study but does not impact the conclusions of the study.

* Trivial: Error does not relate to the analysis or interpretation of any study outcomes or conclusions.

Both authors independently rated each erratum, and conflicts were resolved through discussions with a methodologist at CADTH.

Errata accessibility

We determined the accessibility of errata by examining:

1. The inclusion of errata citations in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus: We searched each database using the specific erratum citation information to identify if errata were indexed as separate records. We also searched each database for the original journal article record to determine if it was updated to note that an erratum had been published.

2. The costs of obtaining errata: We determined cost by searching each erratum on the journal publisher's website to see if the full text of the erratum was freely available or if charges applied for obtaining full text.

3. The time lag between original article publication and erratum publication: We determined the dates using the journal publisher's website and selected the earliest identified publication date, including any time available as prepublication.

4. Updating of the original publication: We searched the journal publisher's website to identify if any online versions of the original article had been updated after the publication of the corresponding erratum. If the erratum itself stated that the online version was updated, we did not further verify the online version.

RESULTS

Errata frequency

A total of 26 errata were identified for the 127 articles included in the 40 systematic reviews. Of these included articles, 19% (24 out of 127) had an associated erratum (2 articles had 2 separate errata issued).

Errors and error severity

A total of 38 errors were reported across the 26 errata, giving an average of 1.5 errors per erratum. Of the 38 errors, 6 (15.8%) were classified as major, 20 (52.6%) as minor, and 12 (31.6%) as trivial. Table 1 provides examples of errors in each of these categories.

Errata accessibility

Inclusion in databases. None of the four databases included all twenty-six errata as separate records or updated all original article records to indicate that a corresponding erratum had been published (Table 2). Six errata were not found in any of the four databases and were identified only by searching the publishers' websites. Although one of these errata was included in several databases as a letter, the records gave no indication that the letter contained a correction. Altogether, the six unindexed errata described seven errors: two major and five minor.

Embase and Scopus included the highest number of separate records for errata themselves (19/26). MEDLINE was the only database that frequently updated original records to note that an erratum was issued (18/26). Few of the errata (5/26) had separate records in MEDLINE; however, MEDLINE only began including errata as separate records in 2015 [7].

Time lag. On average, errata were published 211 days (median 123 days) after the original article publication. The time lag ranged from 15 days to 1,036 days. The mean time lag for errata correcting a major error was 333 days (median 237 days, n=6) compared to 175 days (median 120 days, n=20) for those including only minor or trivial errors.

Cost of obtaining errata. All errata were freely available.

Updating of online articles. In total, fourteen of the twenty-four unique journal articles had updated online versions that corrected the errors. Nine uncorrected original articles were found on the publishers' websites, although all of these did provide a link to the erratum on the article web page. In the remaining case, it was unclear as to whether or not the original version was updated as the erratum did not clearly describe the errors.

DISCUSSION

Errata frequency

Just under 1 in 5 articles included in the systematic reviews studied had associated errata. This errata prevalence was higher than estimates in previous studies: 4% in Molckovsky et al.'s review of oncology journals [3], 4% in Hauptman et al.'s review of general medicine and cardiovascular journals [4], and just under 2% in Castillo et al.'s review of imaging journals [2]. The higher percentage in our sample might be due to differences in the types of articles that were assessed. The researchers in the 3 previous studies hand-searched journals and identified errata for all articles found in these journals [2-4]. Our sample was restricted to studies included in systematic reviews of drug trials, which tend to be randomized controlled trials published in high-impact journals and have many authors. Hauptman et al. found a strong positive association between a journal's impact factor and the rate of errata it issued, as well as a positive correlation between the number of authors an article had and the number of errors found in a variety of article sections [4].

Severity of errors

The percentage of errors that potentially impacted the conclusions of a study was comparable to the results reported by Molckovsky et al. in 2011 [3] and by Royle and Waugh in 2004 [5]. We found 16% of errors in errata would impact the analysis or interpretation of a study's primary outcome and, subsequently, the conclusions of the study. Similarly, Molckovsky et al. classified 14% (26/190) of errors identified in high-impact oncology journals as "serious" (as opposed to "trivial") [3], while Royle and Waugh reported that 15% of errata might affect either (1) the results of a meta-analysis (5%) or (2) the interpretation of the trial only (10%) [5]. Despite the small percentage that changed the results of a meta-analysis, they concluded that the majority of errata would be still be useful for individuals conducting systematic reviews as "full and accurate data can reduce confusion and save reviewers time" [5].

Errata accessibility

Incomplete indexing and a variable time lag between the initial publication of the article and the notice of erratum can complicate the retrieval of errata for systematic reviews. Not all errata were accessible in the four databases that we searched, with six out of twenty-six only found by searching journal publishers' websites. Further, when errata were included as separate records in a database, they frequently had minimal information that would facilitate their retrieval through a literature search (i.e., no subject headings, one-word titles, and no abstracts). Of the databases that were studied, only MEDLINE updated an original article's record to reflect the later publication of an erratum. As a consequence, reviewers might not be aware that an erratum exists when screening records.

There was also a wide range in the amount of lag time between publication of the original article and the erratum publication date--anywhere from 15 to 1,036 days--making it difficult to predict when errata would typically be issued. Further, previous studies have found that time to publication of an erratum was significantly longer for those correcting major errors compared to non-major errors, including Royle and Waugh (mean 7.1 months versus 2.9 months) [5] and Molckovsky et al. (median 8.3 months versus 3.5 months) [3].

One apparent improvement in accessibility since Royle and Waugh's study [5] was that all the errata in the present study were available in full text free of charge, in contrast to their findings in 2004 that 7 out of 15 journals did not provide free access to errata [5]. However, the updating of online versions of articles remained incomplete. As with Hauptman et al. [4], we found it difficult to identify in some cases whether corrections had been made to the online versions of the journal articles after errata had been issued, although we found a higher number had been corrected (58% in the present study versus 49% in Hauptman et al.).

Limitations

This research was based on a small sample of errata from single-drug systematic reviews, which could limit the generalizability of the results. It is possible that the frequency and timing of errata vary based on the subject matter and impact factor of journals. We did not evaluate whether the major errors that were identified would have altered the conclusions of the systematic reviews, only whether they would affect conclusions of the original articles. Future research should prospectively evaluate whether errata are retrieved in systematic search results and whether errata records are retrieved in search alerts.

Implications for practice

Given our findings, evidence from previous studies, and our own experiences as information specialists, we present the following recommendations for searchers, journal publishers, and database producers to improve identification and retrieval of errata.

Suggestions for searchers. Those conducting systematic searches are advised to check their bibliographic software settings to confirm that errata information from database records are importing correctly and displaying prominently in citation management software or screening software. For example, in PubMed, the erratum information is contained in a record's EIN field. Once they have uploaded information into a citation software program, searchers should check how it is displayed for reviewers who are screening titles and abstracts. If this information imports into an area hidden from the reviewers who are screening articles, evidence of the existence of errata can be lost. Further, errata with separate database records may appear to be duplicates of the original article records.

When updating systematic reviews, searchers should follow the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook [6] for locating errata. Also, searching for errata after the completion of a systematic literature search may be warranted to identify all errata associated with included studies.

Suggestions for journal publishers. Despite being freely available, it still takes time and effort to locate the full text of errata through journal publishers' websites. Frequently, no indication is given in the database record as to the nature of the error. Given that many errors are minor or trivial, reviewers could be discouraged from the effort to seek out errata [4]. As such, we suggest that journal publishers provide descriptive titles for errata, which indicate the nature of the errors, and avoid simple one-word titles such as "erratum" or "correction." In particular, journal publishers should consider flagging major errors. We concur with Hauptman et al. who suggested that editors could rate severity of errors to increase awareness of serious mistakes [4]. To reduce the circulation of uncorrected versions of the article, we recommend that the online versions of articles be updated when an erratum is issued, in addition to a note indicating that a correction has been made. Furthermore, in the full text of the erratum itself, the original and corrected version of the text should be clearly stated; a simple statement of "changes were made" should be avoided.

Suggestions for database producers. Ideally, databases should update the original article record with the erratum information, as well as index a separate record for the erratum itself. Updating the original record would be the more useful of the two, since it keeps the article information and erratum information connected in one place. However, separate records for the errata can also be useful, as they can come up in search alerts, whereas updates to the original article record might not. Furthermore, separate records allow easier citation of errata.

Perhaps the most helpful change that databases could make would be to include the full text or first paragraph of errata in the abstract field. Doing so would save reviewers the time of tracking down the full text and would immediately indicate the nature of the error. This change could be practical given that most errata are fairly short and freely available. Databases should also flag major errors when the errors occur in the abstracts of journal articles and update the abstracts as necessary.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 5 articles included in the systematic reviews on drugs had an associated erratum. While about a third of errors were considered trivial, more than half of errors were minor ones that could create confusion in interpreting the study data without impacting the conclusions of the study. A smaller portion (16%) were major errors that could affect interpretation of the study's conclusions. As such, it would be useful to retrieve all associated errata related to articles that are included in a systematic review. Although all errata were freely available, the retrieval of errata is hindered by incomplete inclusion in bibliographic databases, inconsistent updating of the original online version of the article on publishers' websites, and variable time lags between publication of the original article and of the erratum. Consequently, errata are not fully accessible through standard systematic review searching methods.

Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review

dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.629

Kelly Farrah, MLIS, AHIP; Danielle Rabb, MLIS

APPENDIX

Systematic reviews included

Note: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Common Drug Review submissions that were evaluated by the Canadian Drug Expert Committee in 2015 were considered for inclusion. While all drug submissions included were evaluated by CADTH's Canadian Drug Expert Committee in 2015, publication of the final review reports ranged from April 2015 to January 2018. Reports on bioequivalent products, reconsiderations of submissions, resubmissions based on a new price, and withdrawn submissions were excluded. Two clinical review reports whose included study lists contained no published journal articles were excluded.

1. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: ranibizumab (Lucentis) (10 mg/mL solution for intravitreal injection, 0.5 mg dose with monthly re-treatment as needed) for visual impairment due to choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Aug 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0373 LucentisCNV_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

2. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: rifaximin (Zaxine) (550 mg tablet) for the reduction in risk of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) recurrence in patients > 18 years of age [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0388_Zaxine_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

3. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: elosulfase alfa (Vimizim) (2 mg/kg of body weight) for long-term enzyme replacement therapy in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (Morquio A syndrome, or MPS IVA) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0389_Vimizim_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

4. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: tocilizumab (Actemra) (162 mg/0.9 mL solution for subcutaneous injection) for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have inadequate response to one or more DMARDs and/or TNF antagonists [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Aug 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0374_ActemraSC_CL_Report.pdf>.

5. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: pasireotide (Signifor) (0.3 mg/mL, 0.6 mg/mL and 0.9 mg/mL injection) for treatment of adult patients with Cushing disease for whom surgery is not an option or for whom surgery has failed, as long as clinical benefit is derived [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Aug 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0372_Signifor_CL_Report.pdf>.

6. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: everolimus (Afinitor) (oral tablets) for the treatment of patients with subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) that have demonstrated serial growth, who are not candidates for surgical resection and for whom immediate surgical intervention is not required [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Sep 2017 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0376 AfimtorSEGA_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

7. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report (resubmission): pirfenidone (Esbriet) (267 mg capsules) for treatment of mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in adults [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Apr 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/dinical/SR0393 Esbriet_CL_Report_resub.pdf>.

8. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: eltrombopag olamine (Revolade) 25 mg and 50 mg tablets to increase platelet counts in thrombocytopenic patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to allow the initiation and maintenance of interferon-based therapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Aug 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0377_RevoladeTCP_CL_Report.pdf>.

9. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) G1 infection in adults [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0395_Harvoni_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

10. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) SC for use alone, or in combination with methotrexate (MTX), for reducing signs and symptoms and inhibiting the progression of structural damage as assessed by X-ray in adult patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis who have failed one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Apr 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0394_CimziaPsA_CL_Report.pdf>.

11. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: eslicarbazepine acetate (Aptiom) oral tablets for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients with epilepsy who are not satisfactorily controlled with conventional therapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; May 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0391_Aptiom_CL_Report.pdf>.

12. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: lomitapide (Juxtapid) (oral capsules) as an adjunct to a low-fat diet and other lipid-lowering drugs, with or without LDL apheresis, to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adult patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0386_Juxtapid_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

13. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) (subcutaneous injection) for reducing signs and symptoms in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Sep 2017 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0385_CimziaAS_CL_Report_e.pdf>.

14. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: tofacitinib (Xeljanz) tablets for, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), reducing the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in adult patients with moderately to severely active RA who have had an inadequate response to MTX. in cases of intolerance to MTX, physicians may consider the use of Xeljanz (tofacitinib) as monotherapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jan 2018 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/dinical/SR0380_Xeljanz_CL_Report.pdf>.

15. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: aflibercept (Eylea) (40 mg/mL solution for intravitreal injection available as a 2 mg single-use vial) for treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0396_EyleaDME_CL_Report.pdf>.

16. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: apixaban (Eliquis) for treatment of venous thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism) and prevention of recurrent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jan 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0397_EliquisVTE_CL_Report.pdf>.

17. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: omalizumab (Xolair) (150 mg and 300 mg subcutaneous injection) for treatment of adults and adolescents (12 years of age and above) with chronic idiopathic urticaria who remain symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Aug 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0398 XolairCIU CL Report.pdf>.

18. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: apremilast (Otezla) for treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0400_Otezla_CL_Report.pdf>.

19. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: aflibercept (Eylea) (40 mg/mL solution for intravitreal injection available as a 2 mg single-use vial) for treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jun 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0401_EyleaCRVO_CL_Report.pdf>.

20. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: alemtuzumab (Lemtrada, intravenous) for the management of adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), with active disease defined by clinical and imaging features, who have had an inadequate response to interferon beta or other disease-modifying therapies [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jun 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0405_Lemtrada_RRMS_CL_Report.pdf>.

21. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir and dasabuvir (Holkira Pak) for the treatment of adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including those with compensated cirrhosis [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jun 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0406_HolkiraPak_CL_Report.pdf>.

22. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: secukinumab (Cosentyx) subcutaneous injection for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Oct 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0407 Cosentyx CL Report.pdf>.

23. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (AZE/FP) for the symptomatic treatment of moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis and associated ocular symptoms in adults and adolescents aged 12 and older for whom monotherapy with either antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids is not considered sufficient [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; May 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0408_Dymista_CL_Report.pdf>.

24. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: tiotropium bromide monohydrate (Spiriva Respimat) for oral inhalation for the long-term once-daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema, and for the reduction of exacerbations [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jul 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0412_SpirivaRespimat_CL_Report.pdf>.

25. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: linaclotide (Constella) for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in adults [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Sep 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0409_Constella_CL_Report.pdf>.

26. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: vedolizumab (Entyvio) for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response, loss of response to, or were intolerant to either conventional therapy or infliximab, a TNF alpha antagonist [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Oct 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0421_Entyvio_CL_Report.pdf>.

27. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: taliglucerase alfa (Elelyso) (30 to 60 U/kg intravenous infusion) for long-term enzyme replacement therapy for adults and children (2 to 17 years old) with a confirmed diagnosis of type 1 Gaucher disease and for hematological manifestations in pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of type 3 Gaucher disease [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jan 2018 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0390_Elelyso_CL_Report.pdf>.

28. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: umeclidinium bromide (Incruse Ellipta) for long-term, once daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including chronic bronchitis and emphysema [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jan 2018 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0422_Incruse_Ellipta_CL_Report.pdf>.

29. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: daclatasvir (Daklinza) in combination with other agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) infection in adults with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1, and 2 infection and compensated liver disease (including cirrhosis) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Sep 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0417_Daklinza_CL_Report.pdf>.

30. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: nintedanib (Ofev) for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Oct 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0426_Ofev_CL_Report.pdf>.

31. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: empagliflozin (Jardiance) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve glycemic control in combination with metformin and a sulfonylurea when diet, exercise, and dual therapy (with metformin plus a sulfonylurea) do not provide adequate glycemic control [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Oct 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0427_Jardiance_CL_Report.pdf>.

32. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: dapagliflozin (Forxiga) for use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve glycemic control in combination with: Metformin, when the existing therapy, along with diet and exercise, does not provide adequate glycemic control; a sulfonylurea, when the existing therapy, along with diet and exercise, does not provide adequate glycemic control; insulin (alone or with metformin), when the existing therapy, along with diet and exercise, does not provide adequate glycemic control [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Nov 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0428_Forxiga_CL_Report.pdf>.

33. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: ivermectin (Rosiver) for the treatment of inflammatory lesions (i.e., papules and pustules) of rosacea in adults 18 years of age or older [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Feb 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0429_Rosiver_CL_Report.pdf>.

34. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: tolvaptan (Jinarc) to slow the progression of kidney enlargement in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Nov 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0435_Jinarc_CL_Report.pdf>.

35. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: tiotropium bromide monohydrate and olodaterol hydrochloride (Inspiolto Respimat) for oral inhalation for the long-term, once daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including chronic bronchitis and emphysema [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Dec 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0436_Inspiolto_Respimat_CL_Report.pdf>.

36. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: riociguat (Adempas) for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH, World Health Organization [WHO] Group 1), as monotherapy or in combination with endothelin receptor antagonists in adult patients ([greater than or equal to]18 years of age) with functional class II or III pulmonary hypertension [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Dec 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0438_Adempas_CL_Report.pdf>.

37. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: inhaled fluticasone furoate (Arnuity Ellipta) (100 mcg and 200 mcg) for the treatment of once daily maintenance treatment of steroid responsive bronchial asthma in patients aged 12 years and older [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Dec 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0439 Arnuity_Ellipta_CL_Report.pdf>.

38. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: peginterferon beta-1a (Plegridy--subcutaneous injection) for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis to reduce the frequency of clinical exacerbations and to slow the progression of disability [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Dec 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0440_Plegridy_CL_Report.pdf>.

39. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: ivacaftor (Kalydeco) for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients 18 years of age and older with a R117H mutation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Jun 2016 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0430_KalydecoR117H_CL_Report.pdf>.

40. Common Drug Review. Clinical review report: rotigotine (Neupro) for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Neupro may be used both as early therapy, without concomitant levodopa, and as an adjunct to levodopa [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH; Nov 2015 [cited 18 Jan 2019]. <https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/clinical/SR0432_Neupro_CL_Report_resub.pdf>.

DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.629

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the assistance of Shaila Mensinkai, David Kaunelis, and Hongbo Yuan for reviewing and providing feedback on the draft manuscript.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None to declare.

REFERENCES

[1.] National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retractions, and other linked citations in PubMed [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: The Library; 2018 Mar [cited 9 May 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html>.

[2.] Castillo M, Northam M, Halm KE. Postpublication errors in imaging-related journals. Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Sep; 33(8):1447-8. DOI: http: //dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3026.

[3.] Molckovsky A, Vickers MM, Tang PA. Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals. Curr Oncol. 2011 Jan; 18(1):26-32. [cited 31 Oct 2018]. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3031354>.

[4.] Hauptman PJ, Armbrecht ES, Chibnall JT, Guild C, Timm JP, Rich MW. Errata in medical publications. Am J Med. 2014 Aug; 127(8):779-85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.amjmed.2014.03.012.

[5.] Royle P, Waugh N. Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata? Health Inf Libr J. 2004 Mar; 21(1):14-20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/i.14711842.2004.00459.x.

[6.] Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.1.0. London, England, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 Mar [cited 9 May 2018]. <http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/>.

[7.] National Library of Medicine. New errata citation policy. NLM Technical Bulletin [Internet]. May 2015 [cited 2018 Nov 14];(404):b5. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/mi15/brief/mi 15 new errata citation policy.html>.

SUPPLEMENTAL FILE

* Appendix: Systematic reviews included

AUTHORS' AFFILIATIONS

Kelly Farrah, MLIS, AHIP, KellyF@cadth.ca, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4211-0705. Research Information Specialist. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Ottawa. ON. Canada

Danielle Rabb, MLIS, DanielleR@cadth.ca. Manager. Research Information Services. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Ottawa. ON. Canada

Received November 2018; accepted December 2018

Kelly Farrah, MLIS, AHIP; Danielle Rabb, MLIS
Table 1 Types of errors found and their impact on interpreting study
results

Error type                    Examples            Potential impact
                                                      on review
Major

  Error impacts the     Incorrect               Would impact the
  analysis or           interpretation of the   conclusion about the
  interpretation of a   primary outcome for     drug's effect
  primary outcome and,  one dosage (reported
  subsequently, the     as significant when
  conclusions of the    improvement was not
  study                 significant)

                        Table of severe         Would affect the
                        adverse events          interpretation of
                        displayed instead of    adverse effects and
                        serious adverse         the conclusion of
                        events                  drug's risk-benefit
                                                evaluation

                        Study length reported   Would impact the
                        as 158 weeks instead    conclusion about the
                        of 216 weeks            drug's effect

Minor

  Error impacts the     Standard errors         Would lead to an
  analysis or           reported as standard    error in the
  interpretation of a   deviations for          confidence interval
  study outcome but     secondary outcome       calculation
  does not impact the
  conclusions of the
  study

                        Incorrect p value       Would impact
                        reported: 0.0001        interpretation of the
                        instead of 0.001        results, although the
                                                conclusions would
                                                remain unchanged

Trivial

  Error does not        Misspelling in author   None
  relate to analysis    name or affiliation
  or interpretation
  of any study
  outcomes or
  conclusions

Table 2 Database accessibility of errata

                                    MEDLINE       Embase

Separate record for errata included in database

  Number of errata records             5            19

Updated original records in database to note errata

  Number of original records          18             0
  modified

Number of either unique errata records or modified original records

  Total database accessibility    18/26 (69%)   19/26 (73%)

                                   CENTRAL       Scopus

Separate record for errata included in database

  Number of errata records            6            19

Updated original records in database to note errata

  Number of original records          1             0
  modified

Number of either unique errata records or modified original records

  Total database accessibility    7/26 (27%)   19/26 (73%)

CENTRAL=Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Medical Library Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
Author:Farrah, Kelly; Rabb, Danielle
Publication:Journal of the Medical Library Association
Article Type:Correction notice
Geographic Code:1CONT
Date:Apr 1, 2019
Words:6307
Previous Article:A pilot project to increase health literacy among youth from seasonal farmworker families in rural eastern North Carolina: a qualitative exploration...
Next Article:Teaching high school students to use online consumer health resources on mobile phones: outcome of a pilot project in Oyo State, Nigeria.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters