Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata?

Pamela Royle1, Norman Waugh

  • 1Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. P.Royle@abdn.ac.uk

Health Information and Libraries Journal
|March 17, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Are single-use duodenoscopes a cost-effective alternative to their reusable counterparts? Economic evaluation incorporating environmental impacts.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy·2026
Same author

Commentary; The ACTIVE trial (Snow et al.). Why did it take so long for ACI to be approved for use in the UK?

Osteoarthritis and cartilage·2026
Same author

Cost of reusable gastrointestinal endoscopes to the NHS: findings from a micro-costing study.

BMJ open gastroenterology·2025
Same author

Single-use versus reusable endoscopes in gastroenterology: Systematic review of full and partial economic evaluations.

Endoscopy international open·2025
Same author

Early pregnancy HbA<sub>1c</sub> as the first screening test for gestational diabetes: results from three prospective cohorts.

The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology·2024
Same author

Type 1 diabetes incidence in Scotland between 2006 and 2019.

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association·2023

Most published errata for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are worth obtaining for systematic reviews, even minor ones. Accurate data from these RCT errata can save time and reduce confusion for researchers.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Research Methodology
  • Information Science

Background:

  • Published errata are common in scientific literature.
  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are crucial for evidence-based medicine.
  • Systematic reviews rely on accurate data from published RCTs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To estimate the proportion of published errata linked to RCTs that are valuable for systematic reviews.
  • To assess the impact of RCT errata from different perspectives.

Main Methods:

  • Searched MEDLINE for RCTs with 'erratum' in comments.
  • Examined 100 errata records from four general medical journals.
  • Evaluated errata from information specialist and experienced reviewer viewpoints.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • 74% of errata were considered worthwhile (mainly table/figure errors).
  • 5% of errata were likely to affect meta-analyses.
  • 85% of errata were deemed not important enough to affect interpretation or meta-analyses.

Conclusions:

  • The majority of RCT errata are worthwhile for systematic reviews.
  • Obtaining errata ensures data accuracy, reduces confusion, and saves reviewer time.
  • While few errata significantly alter conclusions, most offer value for comprehensive reviews.