The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study

Abstract

Objectives To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when their included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. Design A meta-epidemiological study. Data sources The Retraction Watch Database. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs on Web of Science. Review methods We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves by visually inspecting their current web pages. We summarized the proportion of correction and the time from retraction to correction. Results We identified 98 retracted RCTs as well as 360 articles (335 SRs and 25 CPGs) citing them. Among the 360 articles, 157 (44%) were published after the retraction, 203 (56%) were published before retraction. Among 77 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 203 articles published before retraction, 149 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, one SR was retracted due to plagiarism. Only 5% of SRs (6/130) and 11% of CPGs (2/18) corrected their results. Conclusions A large number of SRs and CPGs included already retracted RCTs without caution and never corrected themselves. When SRs and CPGs had included RCTs which were later retracted, only a small minority corrected their evidence syntheses. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

The Citation of Retracted COVID-19 Papers is Common and Rarely Critical

“…The impact of retracted papers on scientific knowledge and clinical practice can continue well after they are retracted. A preprint review has shown that systematic reviews and meta-analyses which include research which is later retracted are rarely, if ever, updated once the issues with the included research come to light, while nearly half of the reviews citing retracted papers were published after those papers were retracted (6). Key recommendations for proper retraction processes remain largely unimplemented across the scientific literature (7).…”

On the road to make KJA’s review process robust, transparent, and credible: retracted study in systematic review

“…Retracted studies have the most obvious flaws. Retraction is defined as the removal of a published paper from a journal to warn readers of the significant problems identified in the article as a means of maintaining the integrity of scientific literature [ 2 ]. Including retracted studies in a systematic review may impact the outcomes and level of evidence, and ultimately provide inaccurate medical guidelines [ 3 , 4 ].…”