2019
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15689
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Objective To determine the number of retracted articles and to examine the reasons for retraction within the obstetrics and gynaecology literature. Design Retrospective review of the PubMed database. Setting N/A. Population Obstetrics and gynaecology articles published from indexation until June 2018. Methods Articles were identified using keywords for retracted articles in obstetrics and gynaecology. Descriptive statistics were performed. Main outcome measures Incidence of article retraction, the reasons give… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
47
0
5

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
47
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, we believe that the actual proportions of retracted RCTs in obstetrics and gynaecology owing to plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification are much higher than the estimation made by Chambers et al, 1 where only the information provided in the notice was used. Therefore, we believe that the actual proportions of retracted RCTs in obstetrics and gynaecology owing to plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification are much higher than the estimation made by Chambers et al, 1 where only the information provided in the notice was used.…”
Section: Sirmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, we believe that the actual proportions of retracted RCTs in obstetrics and gynaecology owing to plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification are much higher than the estimation made by Chambers et al, 1 where only the information provided in the notice was used. Therefore, we believe that the actual proportions of retracted RCTs in obstetrics and gynaecology owing to plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification are much higher than the estimation made by Chambers et al, 1 where only the information provided in the notice was used.…”
Section: Sirmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…1 As the research did not provide a categorisation of reasons for retractions in 18 RCTs, we performed a subsequent analysis and found that, according to retraction notices and information on publisher's website, plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification accounted for 38.9% (n = 7) and 5.6% (n = 1), respectively. Specifically, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) based on fabricated/falsified data have the most direct negative impact on health and health care because their results, either directly or through meta-analyses, inform clinical practice guidelines.…”
Section: Sirmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We want to thank Dr Li and Dr Mol for their interest in our work investigating article retractions in the obstetrics and gynaecology literature and appreciate the opportunity to respond …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drs Li and Mol performed an interesting additional analysis of the retracted randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that provides further insight into the problem of article retractions and scientific misconduct . It is of grave concern that among the retracted RCTs, over 40% had infractions of plagiarism or data falsification.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%