Skip to main content

How should medical journals respond to errors?

Errors in journal articles are common. Most journals now have policies to correct errors in research articles. However, errors in other types of articles often remain uncorrected. I've listed below a few statements in BMJ articles that are either wrong or that are highly unlikely to be true but which remain uncorrected. The BMJ is probably no worse in this respect than other medical journals, but as a member of the BMA, I receive a weekly copy of the print edition and therefore spend more time reading it than other medical journals. This means that I am more likely to pick up errors in the BMJ than in other journals.

The reported incidence [of polycystic ovary syndrome] varies between 3% and 15% of women of reproductive age.

An annual incidence of 15% would imply that after 10 years, a women of childbearing age would have around an 80% risk of developing PCOS. Even the 3% incidence figure would mean that a women of childbearing age would have around a 26% risk of developing PCOS after 10 years. What the author is probably referring to is 'prevalence', which is an entirely different concept to incidence.

Study finds hepatitis C infections more prevalent than previously thought.

This news item reported a small pilot study that had a high degree of selection bias in the people who were tested for hepatitis C, thus leading to a much higher rate of hepatitis C than reported in the larger surveys carried out by the Health Protection Agency.

In any one year one in four people in the United Kingdom have their thyroid function checked.

Two references were given to support this statement. One contained no data on the frequency of thyroid function testing; the other reported that around 10 million thyroid function tests are carried out annually but did not report the source of this statistic. Even if we accept this statistic as accurate, this equates to about one test per six people in the UK, not one per four, assuming that the tests are independent (i.e. each test is carried out on only one patient), which won't be the case. Some people will have multiple tests and hence the actual proportion of the population undergoing thyroid function testing annually will be less than one in six, and very different the authors' quoted figure of one in four.

In 2004 a 1000 point plan called the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) was introduced.

In fact, the QOF contained 1050 points when it was introduced in 2004; the number of points was not reduced to 1000 until 2006.

This is just a small selection of errors that I have noticed in the BMJ. As a 'journal of record', should the BMJ not be leading the way in ensuring that any facts it reports are accurate and any mistakes are corrected promptly?

UPDATE: I've expanded on this discussion in an article published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine


Popular posts from this blog

Can GPs issue private prescriptions to NHS patients?

The NHS prescription charge in England is currently £8.60 per item. At this level, many commonly prescribed drugs will cost less than the prescription charge and so some NHS patients may occasionally ask if they can have a private prescription rather than an NHS prescription.

In the past, some GPs have been advised that they could issue both an NHS FP10 and a private prescription, and let the patient decide which to use. But the British Medical Association's General Practice Committee has obtained legal advice that said under the current primary care contract, GPs in England may not issue a private prescription alongside or as an alternative to an NHS FP10 prescription. In any consultation where a GP needs to issue an FP10, the concurrent issue of a private prescription would be a breach of NHS regulations.

The issuing of a private prescription in such circumstances could also be seen as an attempt to deprive the NHS of the funds it would receive from the prescription charge. Fur…

What will Brexit mean for the NHS?

On the 29 March 2017, the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May, formally notified the European Union (EU) Council President, Donald Tusk, of the UK’s intention to leave the EU. Theresa May’s letter to Donald Tusk triggers a two-year process during which the UK will have to negotiate both the terms of its exit from EU and the arrangements that will replace those we have had for over 40 years with the other member states of the EU. The consequences of the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU (commonly referred to as ‘Brexit’) will be wide-ranging and will affect all areas of UK’s society, including the National Health Service (NHS).

For the NHS, Brexit comes at a time when it faces many other major challenges. These include severe financial pressures, rising workload, increased waiting times for both primary care and specialist services, and shortages of health professionals in many key areas (such as in general practice and in emergency departments). The NHS also faces challenges fr…

Dr Demis Hassabis, Co-Founder and CEO of DeepMind, Speaks about AI in Healthcare

On 28 September 2017, I attended the Annual Institute of Global Health Innovation Lecture: Artificial General Intelligence and Healthcare, delivered by Dr Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind. Artificial intelligence is the science of making machines smart argued Dr Hassabis, so how can we make it improve the healthcare sector? Dr Hassabis then went on to describe the work that DeepMind was carrying out in healthcare in areas such as organising information, deep learning to support the reporting of medical images (such as scans and pathology slides), and biomedical science. Dr Hassabis also discussed the challenges of applying techniques such as reinforcement learning in healthcare. He concluded that artificial intelligence has great scope for improving healthcare; for example, by prioritising the tasks that clinicians had to carry out and by providing decision support aids for both patients and doctors. Dr Hassabis also discussed some of the ethical issues in using …