The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis

Abstract

Background: In primary health care, the dissemination of retracted publications through literature reviews, guidelines, and recommendations can have a significant and lasting impact. Despite this potential threat, the retraction consequences and patterns in this domain have not been extensively explored. Therefore, this study investigates the characteristics and ripple effects of retracted papers in primary health care literature. Methods: Retracted publications indexed in PubMed from 1984 to 2022 in primary health care journals underwent bibliometric analysis. The dataset included detailed publication information, from which we derived annual retraction rates and examined trends by journal, authorship, and geographic origin. We further evaluated the extent of influence exerted by retracted papers through postretraction citation analysis. Results: In 44 primary health care journals, 13 articles were retracted over the study period, representing a retraction rate of 0.01%—notably lower than the aggregate rate for all PubMed journals. Despite this, we observed a recent surge in retraction frequency, especially in the last decade. The median interval to retraction was 15 months, with scientific misconduct, specifically fabrication and plagiarism, as the predominant reasons. After retraction, the articles continued to exert considerable influence, averaging 25 citations per article with a 78.1% postretraction citation prevalence. Conclusion: Retractions resulting from scientific misconduct in primary health care are increasing, with a substantial portion of such work continuing to be cited. This trend underscores the urgent need to improve research ethics and develop mechanisms that help primary care physicians discern reliable information, thereby reducing the reliance on compromised literature.