Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews

Brown, Sarah Jane; Bakker, Caitlin; Theis‐Mahon, Nicole

doi:10.5195/jmla.2022.1280

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The range and frequency of retraction reasons varied between different academic fields. For example, in both dentistry and obstetrics, redundant publications, and plagiarism were the most common reasons ( 27 , 46 ), while in the field of pharmacy, falsification, or data manipulation were the most frequent ( 47 ), which are in contrast to our findings in schizophrenia-related research. The development and application of Plagiarism Detection software, such as iThenticate and Turnitin ( 16 , 46 ), may contribute considerably to preventing plagiarism issues.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

Chen

et al. 2022

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe growing rate of retraction of scientific publications has attracted much attention within the academic community, but there is little knowledge about the nature of such retractions in schizophrenia-related research. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retractions of schizophrenia-related publications.Materials and methodsThe Web of Science was searched for eligible studies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of the retractions using R software and Excel 2019. Content analysis was conducted to examine the essential components of retraction notices.ResultsA total of 36 retracted publications with 415 citations were identified from 1997 to 2021, of which, 83.3% occurred in the last decade. The overall retraction rate was 0.19%, with most of them (29; 80.56%) from the United Kingdom. The retractions were published in 33 journals, and the 2020 IFs ranged between 0.17 and 49.96 (Median = 3.93). The retractions involved 21 research areas, particularly in Psychiatry (19; 52.78%), Neurosciences and Neurology (10; 27.78%), and Psychology (7; 19.44%). Data issues (17; 42.22%), administrative errors of the publishers (5; 13.89%), and study design (4; 11.11%) were the top three reasons for retractions.ConclusionThis study provides an insight into retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

Chen

et al. 2022

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses mis-cite retracted studies at problematic levels and may not be immune to the impacts of some retractions. One study focusing on the citation of retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews found that 20% of the retracted publications in a sample had been cited in systematic reviews, and that approximately one third of those citations had occurred after the retraction of the publication [31]. Of these post-retraction citations, 80% did not indicate that the publication had been retracted [32].…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This lengthiness has implications for the use of the material. For example, retracted pharmacy publications cited in systematic reviews were retracted 7 years after initial publication, whereas retracted pharmacy publications that were not cited in systematic reviews were retracted 3.2 years after publication [31]. Retractions may sometimes be preceded by an expression of concern, which aims to alert readers to a potential problem but does not definitively state that the publication or its findings are flawed.…”

Section: Why Is a Publication's Retracted Status Often Not Acknowledg...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

Bakker¹,

Boughton²,

Faggion³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press; and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (e.g., scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

show abstract

“…This is important given that the issues discussed in the systematic review manuscript may be similar to those in the included primary studies. 11 You may be able to carry out an electronic plagiarism check to ensure that the similarity index is acceptably low before the manuscript is submitted for publication. 12 Paraphrasing and using quotations with references to the original sources protect against allegation of plagiarism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely

Chien

Khan²

2023

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews rank at the top of the evidence hierarchy. Concise writing implies drafting the systematic review article succinctly, i.e. using as few words to express as full an extent of the research effort as possible. Precise writing means drafting the text with accuracy especially with respect to the methodological and statistical aspects. The Abstract ought to be succinct and structured to allow for editors, peer reviewers and readers to get the gist of the key aspects of the systematic review with a quick read. The readership needs to be able to critically appraisal systematic reviews for their internal and external validity rapidly. The Abstract also needs to be standalone, representing an independent summary that can be fully understood without the need for reading the full paper. The standard structure of the main text of a scientific article called IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) applies equally to systematic reviews in the same way as it does to any other kinds of research manuscripts whether related to laboratory experiments or clinical trials. Restricting the word count limits to those imposed by journals may at first seem difficult, even unfair, to systematic reviewers. However, with the availability of online appendices to transparently and fully report the details of the methods, results and other aspects of the work undertaken allows for a succinct print or PDF article. Writing a shorter manuscript is more effortful than writing a longer report. This commentary is aimed at novice systematic reviewers to help them learn the written and unwritten writing rules in order to assist them in producing impactful publications to support evidence-based medicine. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.39.2.7428 How to cite this: Chien PFW, Khan KS. Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(2):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.39.2.7428 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews

Cited by 20 publications

References 47 publications

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About