Use of Tiotropium Bromide for Pre-operative Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Comparison with Oxitropium Bromide

Matsuyama, Wataru; Mitsuyama, Hideo; Koreeda, Yoshimizu; Higashimoto, Ikkou; Osame, Mitsuhiro; Arimura, Kimiyoshi

doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.47.r001

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It had 11 citations from Google Scholar and Web of Science as of December 2019. Of these 11, three citations-its retraction notice (Matsuyama et al 2008) (self-retracted for data problems) and 2 studies of retracted publications-cite with awareness of the retraction. Of the remaining 8 citations, 3 were in the year of retraction, while the remaining 5 citations in Greek, Chinese, and English from 2011 to 2017 are clearly post-retraction but only available in Google Scholar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This fits the picture of the lower impact factor of the journal (consistently Q3 in its JCR impact factor category, Medicine, General and Internal-SCIE, since 2001), but may also be impacted by the visibility of the retraction. On Web of Science, the retraction notice (Matsuyama et al 2008) appears in search results for the article's title, and in the citations. As of early 2020, the article's abstract on the publisher website, J-STAGE, reads "This article was retracted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See the Notification. ", the HTML links to the retraction notice (Matsuyama et al 2008), and the first page of the PDF includes a copy of the retraction notice itself. Visibility of the retraction notice is of course not the only difference between this article and our case paper but it is suggestive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

Schneider

Hill

et al. 2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. 10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. 10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%