BACKGROUND: The publication of invalid scientific findings may have profound implications on medical practice. As the incidence of article retractions has increased over the last 2 decades, organizations have formed, including Retraction Watch, to improve the transparency of scientific publishing. At present, the incidence of article retraction in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number of retracted articles within the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases and examine reasons for retraction. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases was performed to identify retracted articles in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from indexation through December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the number of identified articles and reason for retraction. Within PubMed, articles were identified using a medical subheading search for articles categorized as withdrawn or retracted. In addition, the Retraction Watch database was queried and nonobstetrical articles were excluded. The reason for retraction was classified according to the categories listed in Retraction Watch. The subject matter was classified on the basis of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine criteria. Data were collected from retracted articles for author name, country, journal name and impact factor, year of publication and retraction, study type, and response of the publishing journal. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Of the 519 obstetrics and gynecology articles in Retraction Watch, 122 (23.5%) were specific to the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine specialties. In addition, 39 (32.0%) were identified from PubMed, all of which were included in Retraction Watch. There was a median time to retraction of 1 (range, 0e17) year, with a median of 3 citations per article (range, 0e145). In addition, the median journal impact factor was 2.2 (range, 0.1e27.6), with median first and senior author Hirsch index values of 6.0 and 13.5, respectively. Most articles were original research (n¼80; 65.6%), specifically retrospective studies (n¼11; 9.0%), case reports (n¼19; 15.6%), prospective studies (n¼18; 14.8%), randomized controlled trials (n¼11; 9%), basic science (n¼18; 14.8%), and systematic review or meta-analysis (n¼3; 2.5%). Of eligible articles, 32 (26.2%) were published in journals with an impact factor 4, and 21 articles (17.2%) were published in the top 10 leading impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals. Most retractions were for contentrelated issues (n¼87; 71.3%), including 21.3% (n¼26) for article duplication, 18.9% (n¼23) for plagiarism, and 16.4% (n¼20) for errors in results or methods. Additional reasons included author misconduct (n¼12; 9.8%), nonreproducible results (n¼11; 9.0%), and falsification (n¼8; 6.6%). The most common journal response was an issued statement of retraction (n¼82; 67.2%). Lack of retraction notice and l...

Candida osteoarticular infections may be successfully treated with substantially limited durations of AFT when combined with a thorough surgical approach.

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to determine whether routine third-trimester ultrasounds in low-risk pregnancies decrease the rate of perinatal death compared with regular antenatal care with serial fundal height measurements. DATA SOURCES: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials to identify relevant studies published from inception to October 2019. The databases used were Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a combination of key words related to "third trimester ultrasound" and "low-risk." STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all randomized control trials of singleton, nonanomalous low-risk pregnancies that were randomized to either one or more thirdtrimester ultrasounds (ultrasound group) or serial fundal height (fundal height group). Exclusion criteria were patients with multiple gestations, maternal medical complications, or fetal abnormalities requiring a third-trimester ultrasound. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The primary outcome was the rate of perinatal death. The secondary outcomes were rates of fetal growth restriction, suspected large for gestational age, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, fetal anomalies, antenatal interventions, stillbirth, neonatal death, cesarean delivery, induction of labor, and other neonatal outcomes. This meta-analysis was performed with the use of the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to produce relative risk or mean difference with a corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 7 randomized control trials with 23,643 participants (12,343 in the ultrasound group vs 11,300 in the fundal height group) were included. The total rate of perinatal death was similar among the groups (41 of 11,322 [0.4%] vs 34 of 10,285 [0.3%]; relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.68e1.89). The rate of fetal growth restriction was higher in the ultrasound group (763 of 10,388 [7%] vs 337 of 9021 [4%]; relative risk, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.86e2.39) and the rate of suspected large for gestational age (1060 of 3513 [30%] vs 375 of 3558 [11%]; relative risk, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.6e3.2). Polyhydramnios was also significantly higher in the ultrasound group than the fundal height group (18 of 323 [6%] vs 4 of 322 [1%] relative risk, 3.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.4e11). The rates of the remainder of the secondary outcomes were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: Routine third-trimester ultrasounds do not decrease the rate of perinatal death compared with serial fundal height in low-risk pregnancies. Ideally, an adequately powered trial is warranted to determine whether perinatal mortality in the fundal height group can be reduced by one-third with third-trimester ultrasound.

No abstract

Since antepartum and intrapartum risk factors are poor at identifying women whose labor is complicated by shoulder dystocia, sonographic examination of the fetus holds promise. Though there are several measurements of biometric parameters to identify the parturient who will have shoulder dystocia, none are currently clinically useful. Three national guidelines confirm that sonographic measurements do not serve as appropriate diagnostic tests to identify women who will have shoulder dystocia with or without concurrent injury. In summary, biometric measurements of the fetus should not be used to alter clinical management with the aim of averting shoulder dystocia.

No abstract