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.

Background: Low-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.Aim: To identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.Methods: A descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.Results: A total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking Evidence to Action: Context-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation. BACKGROUNDLow-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases (Ojo et al., 2019). Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice (Edwards, Zweigenthal, & Olivier, 2019). In LMICs, where resources are scarce and burden of disease is high, justification to intervene in healthcare practice must be based on high-quality, evidence-based findings (Edwards et al., 2019). However, despite a growing body of research to inform clinical decision-making that considers the best available evidence (

Objective: The aim of this review is to determine whether suture button fixation is more effective than traditional screw fixation for the management of acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries. Introduction: Syndesmotic injuries are common and require surgical management to avoid chronic pain and instability, and to improve long-term functional outcomes. Screw fixation and suture button fixation are the 2 techniques of choice for treatment; however, there remains ongoing debate surrounding which treatment modality delivers the best outcomes, leading to significant variability in practice. The suture button is a relatively new technique; therefore, there is a need for an updated, high-quality systematic review to help guide best practice in syndesmosis injury management. Inclusion criteria: This review will consider studies comparing suture button versus screw fixation of acute (<6 weeks) distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries. Patients aged 18 or over, with syndesmotic injuries requiring surgical stabilization, with or without an associated fracture, will be included. The primary outcome of interest will be composite functional ankle scores. Secondary outcomes will include range of motion, pain, joint malreduction, complications rates, re-operation rates, and return to work/sport. Methods: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI guidelines for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, in addition to gray literature databases. No publication date or language limits will be applied. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, assessing methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal tools. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess certainty in the findings. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022331211

No abstract