Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27354716›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2016

Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review.

J Yan, A MacDonald, L-P Baisi, N Evaniew, M Bhandari, M Ghert

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020
    Article
  13. Post-randomization bias.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2020
    Article
  14. Reality of Misconduct in Iranian Orthopedic Publications.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Truths, lies, and statistics.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J YanDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Division of Orthopaedics, HGH 8N06, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada.
A MacDonaldMichael G. Degroote School of Medicine, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
L-P BaisiDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Division of Orthopaedics, HGH 8N06, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada.
N EvaniewDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Division of Orthopaedics, 293 Wellington St N, Suite 110, Hamilton ON, L8L 8E7, Canada.
M BhandariDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Division of Orthopaedics, 293 Wellington St N, Suite 110, Hamilton ON, L8L 8E7, Canada.
M GhertDepartment of Surgery, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Division of Orthopaedics, 711 Concession Street, Level B3 Surgical offices, Hamilton, Ontario, L8V 1C3, Canada mghert@HHSC.CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature.

methodsTwo reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the 'retracted' filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (www.retractionwatch.com). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin.

resultsOne hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19).

conclusionThe rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators.Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263-268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047.

Indexed as

Orthopaedic researchResearch ethicsRetractions

Identifiers

PMID27354716
PMCPMC4957175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.