RETRACTED ARTICLE: Prevention of hip fractures by exposure to sunlight and pharmacotherapy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease

Iwamoto, Jun; Satō, Yoshihiro; Tanaka, Kiyoshi; Takeda, Tsuyoshi; Matsumoto, Hideo

doi:10.1007/bf03324916

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found that unreliable data was one of the most important reasons for the retraction, involving more than one fourth of the retracted SRs, and some SRs had included retracted primary studies [42][43][44] . SRs have the potential to provide sufficient sample size to make more powerful evidence-based conclusions than primary studies.…”

Section: Results In Relation To Prior Studiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review

Shi¹,

Wang²,

Zhou³

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Section: Results In Relation To Prior Studiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review

Shi¹,

Wang²,

Zhou³

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also found that unreliable data was one of the most important reasons for the retraction, involving more than one fourth of the studies, and some SRs had included retracted primary studies [40][41][42] . SRs have the potential to provide su cient sample size and generalizable population information to make more powerful evidence-based conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in medicine. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception until April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We described the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction.ResultsWe identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China (n=113, 75.3%) and affiliated with hospitals (n=106, 70.7%). Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3 (n=85, 56.7%). The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly (n=60, 40.0%); seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review (n=61, 37.9%) was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data (n=41, 25.5%) meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error. ConclusionsThe situation with retracted SRs is critical worldwide, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, and authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.

show abstract

“…We also found that unreliable data was one of the important reasons for the retraction, involving more than one fourth of the studies, and some SRs included retracted primary studies [39-41] . SRs have the potential to provide sufficient sample size and generalizable population information to make more powerful evidence-based conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in the field of medicine. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We describe the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction. Results: We identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3, and in journal ranked in the third quarter. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly; seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error. Conclusions: The situation with retracted SRs is critical globally, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, while at the same time authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology. Keywords: Retraction; Systematic review; non-Cochrane; Research ethics.

show abstract

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Prevention of hip fractures by exposure to sunlight and pharmacotherapy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease

Abstract: The present study clarified the efficacy of three interventions, including exposure to sunlight, menatetrenone, and risedronate with calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation against hip fractures in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review

More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About