Inclusion of nursing trials in systematic reviews after they have been retracted: Does it happen and what should we do?

Gray, Richard; Al-Ghareeb, Amal; Davis, Jenny; McKenna, Lisa; Hillel, Stav

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.006

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most comprehensive identification of retracted papers is probably from Grieneisen and Zhang (2012), which sought to assemble retracted papers from 42 sources, and the Retraction Watch database (Retraction Watch n.d.), which became publicly searchable in 2018. For retrieving citation data, Web of Science has been the most frequent source of citations (e.g., Budd et al 1998;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof 1990;Madlock-Brown and Eichmann 2015;Pfeifer and Snodgrass 1990;Redman et al 2008;Wright 1991), with some recent studies using data from Scopus (e.g., Bar-Ilan and Halevi 2018;Budd et al 2016;Gray et al 2018;Rubbo et al 2018; van der Vet and Nijveen 2016), Google Scholar (Jan et al 2018), or multiple of these sources (e.g., Avenell et al 2019;Fulton et al 2015a;Hamilton 2019).…”

Section: Citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet 85% of the post-retraction citations to these same 12 retracted clinical trials "expressed no concern" (Avenell et al 2019, p. 2). Also potentially propagating clinical error, at least 5 systematic reviews in nursing included and synthesized articles that had already been retracted (Gray et al 2018). Such citations do not meet consensus medical journal guidelines stating that retracted papers are not to be cited as science (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2019).…”

Section: Citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data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

confidence: 99%

Section: Citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…[26]." Support conformational analysis [9,22] "Conformational analysis of 4 was performed with Schrödinger MacroModel 2016 by following the method of Willoughby et al [35]." Successful example [53] "The successful characterization of karlotoxin 2 (KmTx2) followed by KmTx8 [17,28,33,40] "Therefore, we turned to a protocol that relies on density functional theory-based computations of 1H and 13C NMR chemical shifts and the use of statistical tools to assign the experimental data to the correct isomer of a compound [28].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, articles that substantively use the findings of retracted papers need reexamination. Fundamental errors can result from certain uses of retracted papers, including for synthesizing medical evidence [2,22]. As of 2019, the industry Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) warns: "Articles that relied on subsequently retracted articles in reaching their own conclusions, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, may themselves need to be corrected or retracted."…”

Section: Scope and Importance Of The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Knowledge Maintenance in Scientific Digital Libraries with the Keystone Framework

Schneider

2020

Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific digital libraries speed dissemination of scientific publications, but also the propagation of invalid or unreliable knowledge. Although many papers with known validity problems are highly cited, no auditing process is currently available to determine whether a citing paper's findings fundamentally depend on invalid or unreliable knowledge. To address this, we introduce a new framework, the keystone framework, designed to identify when and how citing unreliable findings impacts a paper, using argumentation theory and citation context analysis. Through two pilot case studies, we demonstrate how the keystone framework can be applied to knowledge maintenance tasks for digital libraries, including addressing citations of a non-reproducible paper and identifying statements most needing validation in a high-impact paper. We identify roles for librarians, database maintainers, knowledgebase curators, and research software engineers in applying the framework to scientific digital libraries. CCS CONCEPTS• Information systems~Digital libraries and archives • Computing methodologies~Discourse, dialogue and pragmatics •Applied computing~Document management and text process~Document metadata 1

show abstract

“…Finally, where applicable, it was agreed that guidance statements should be embedded within the checklist as numbered addendums. This includes, for example, advice that quality checks should include research report retractions (Gray, Al-Ghareeb, Davis, McKenna, & Hillel, 2018).…”

Section: Post Consensus Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A scoping review aims to systematically explore and map the research available from a wide range of sources. The objective of this study was to produce a scoping review checklist to guide future scoping studies to enable rigorous review and critique of phenomena of interest. The methods used included a review of literature, expert consensus group meetings, a modified Delphi survey and, finally, verification against recent scoping study examples. Results showed that the checklist was able to identify key elements of scoping reviews. The 22-item Scoping Review Checklist (SRC), which includes two optional stakeholder consultation items, has been developed using rigorous recommended approaches. The checklist can be used to guide the conduct and critique of scoping studies.

show abstract

Inclusion of nursing trials in systematic reviews after they have been retracted: Does it happen and what should we do?

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

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

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

Towards Knowledge Maintenance in Scientific Digital Libraries with the Keystone Framework

An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About