Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Ongoing Citations of a Retracted Study Involving Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in COVID-19 (Letters; Todd C. Lee, MD, et al | August 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on January 9, 2022
Keywords: Biomedical, Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Medical research, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On August, 2 2021

A 3D illustration of "JUNK SCIENCE" title on a medical document

In Spring 2020, early during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2 prominent studies that used a database from Surgisphere, a little-known company, were quickly retracted because of concerns about fraudulent data. One study1 purported to study the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Published online in the Lancet on May 22, 2020, it was retracted on June 13, 2020.2 As of June 11, 2021, the study had an Altmetric attention score of 23 084. The second study3 claimed to investigate the association between cardiovascular disease, renin-angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor therapy, and COVID-19 outcomes. Published online May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), it was retracted on June 4, 2020.3 As of June 11, 2021, the study had an Altmetric attention score of 3727. We sought to evaluate the association of the widely publicized retraction4,5 with further citations of the NEJM study.3

A concerning topic that is not discussed often enough, especially for medical research, is that the continued citation of retracted papers perpetuates the toxic impact of papers that have been retracted.  The consequences of the longevity of these toxic papers (sometimes referred to as zombie papers) has been especially apparent for COVID research.  Is only a question of the validity of the scientific record, it is about patient safety and the degree in which crazy/loopy theories are perpetuated by continued citation.  We have included links to two related items.

Methods

On April 2, 2021, and with an update on May 31, 2021, we used Google Scholar to identify works that cited the retracted NEJM article from Mehra et al.3 We verified the citations by reviewing the full text of the articles. For each citing article, we determined the initial date of publication, whether the retraction was cited or otherwise noted, and if a study that was reported in the article used the data in a secondary analysis. We also determined the country of origin, article language, type of article, and the number of secondary citations (ie, citations of the article that cited the retracted study).3 Because our study did not involve human participants, it was deemed exempt from institutional board review.

Results

We identified 934 articles that cited the retracted study; of these, 146 (15.6%) were preprints or not from peer reviewed journals, 63 (6.7%) were duplicate citations in Google Scholar, and 2 (0.2%) were false links. We could not locate the full text of 10 articles (1.1%). Of the remaining 713, a citation was verified in 652 (91.4%) (http://individual.utoronto.ca/leet/citingpapers.pdf) (Table). Of the 652 verified citations, 70 citations (10.7%) preceded the month of retraction and 227 (34.8%) of the citations occurred within the first 2 months of the retraction. Most citing articles (355 [54.4%]) were published 3 months or later after the retraction; 181 (27.8%) were published 6 months or later (Table and Figure). In May 2021, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times. Of the 652 verified citations, 115 (17.6%) cited or otherwise noted the retraction. Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text in the article; however, in 17 articles (2.6%) the authors incorporated the data into a new analysis. Two of these articles noted the retraction. Of these 17 articles, 11 (64.7%) were published 3 months or later and 7 (41.2%) were published 6 months or later after the retraction; as of May 31, 2021, the 17 articles had a median of 19 secondary citations (interquartile range, 2-49).

Lee TC., Senecal J., Hsu JM. & McDonald EG. (2021) Ongoing Citations of a Retracted Study Involving Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(11):1535–1537. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4112
Publisher (Open Access): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2782460

Ongoing Citations of a Retracted Study Involving Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in COVID-19
This quality improvement study examines the continued citations of a widely publicized retracted article on COVID-19.

Related Reading

1Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science (Preprint Papers: Serge P.J.M. Horbach et. al. | February 2021)

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19 (Papers: Hiba Khan | February 2022)

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints (Preprint Papers: Alice Fleerackers, et al | February 2022)

Continued Use of Retracted Publications: Implications for Information Systems and Scientific Publishing (Papers: Peiling Wang, et al | January 2022)

The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study (Preprint Papers: Yuki Kataoka, et al | February 2022)

Zombie papers: Why do papers by the most prolific fraudster in history keep getting cited? – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | April 2020)

“A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | January 2018)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in