AimArticle retraction is a measure taken by journals or authors where there is evidence of research misconduct or error, redundancy, plagiarism or unethical research. Recently, the retraction of scientific publications has been on the rise. In this survey, we aimed to describe the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions.MethodsWe searched retracted articles on the PubMed database and Retraction Watch website from 1980 to February 2016. The primary outcomes were the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. The secondary outcomes included how article retractions were handled by journals and how to improve the journal practices toward article retractions.ResultsWe included 1,339 retracted articles. Most retracted articles had six authors or fewer. Article retraction was most common in the USA (26%), Japan (11%) and Germany (10%). The main reasons for article retraction were misconduct (51%, n = 685) and error (14%, n = 193). There were 66% (n = 889) of retracted articles having male senior or corresponding authors. Of the articles retracted after August 2010, 63% (n = 567) retractions were reported on Retraction Watch. Large discrepancies were observed in the ways that different journals handled article retractions. For instance, articles were completely withdrawn from some journals, while in others, articles were still available with no indication of retraction. Likewise, some retraction notices included a detailed account of the events that led to article retraction, while others only consisted of a statement indicating the article retraction.ConclusionThe characteristics, geographic distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants were examined in this survey. More efforts are needed to improve the consistency and transparency of journal practices toward article retractions.

The aim of the present study was to clinically and radiographically compare and evaluate the treatment outcomes using 3D miniplate versus conventional 2.0 mm miniplates in fractures fixation of the anterior mandible. The study enrolled 16 patients with a total of 18 fractures; suffering from anterior mandibular fractures (symphysis and/or parasymphysis) requiring open reduction and internal fixations through an intra-oral approach. Groups I patients were fixed using 3D titanium miniplates and screws. Group II patients were fixed using two 2.0 mm titanium miniplates and screws. Postoperative primary clinical treatment outcome points for comparative evaluation for all patients were fracture stability, the need for additional IMF, the need for minor occlusal adjustments and satisfactory occlusion. Secondary assessment points were infection, wound dehiscence and neurosensory deficit. Radiographic evaluation postoperatively was in terms of reduction adequacy, bone union and condylar positional change measurement. With respect to all the evaluated parameters, statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract