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

Retracted randomised controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (Papers: Yuki Kataoka, et al | June 2022)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Human Research Ethics, Research Integrity on August 12, 2022
Keywords: Breaches, Clinical trial, Human research ethics, Journal, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On June, 29 2022

A photo focused on a cannula drip chamber with a blurred patient in the background.

Abstract

Background and Objectives

To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.]

Methods

This research and open access paper, which was published in June 2022, discusses a ‘good’ example of what’s wr0ng with the continued citation of retracted papers.  Papers can be retracted because of ostensibly serious matters such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.  Dodgy clinical trials can be a significant concern because they can prompt subsequent researchers to go down blind alleys and perhaps ignore genuinely useful lines of enquiry.  They can breed inefficiency.  They can also distort clinical practice and put patients in danger.  More needs to be done to stop their citation.  We have included links to six related items.

In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. 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.

Results

We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results.

Conclusion

Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Yuki Kataokaa, Y., Bannob, M. Tsujimotob, Y. Ariieb, T., Taitob, S.,  Suzukib, T., Oideb, S. & Furukawa, T.A. (2022) Retracted randomised controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 90-97
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(22)00166-4/fulltext

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines
To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs)
and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials
(RCTs) have been retracted.

Related Reading

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

‘Zombie papers’ just won’t die. Retracted papers by notorious fraudster still cited years later – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | June 2022)

Building Stronger Chains Together: Keeping Preprints Connected to the Scholarly Record – Scholarly Kitchen (Michele Avissar-Whiting | June 2022)

Addressing the Continued Circulation of Retracted Research as a Design Problem (Nathan D. Woods & Jodi Schneider | February 2022)

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

Continued Use of Retracted Papers – Temporal Trends in Citations and (Lack of) Awareness of Retractions Shown in Citation Contexts in Biomedicine (Preprint Papers: Tzu-Kun Hsiao & Jodi Schneider | October 2021)

Retracting publications doesn’t stop them from influencing science – Massive Science (Fanni Daniella Szakal | March 2021)

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (Papers: Jodi Schneider, et al | October 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