ArticlePloS one2019
Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Pooled it
- Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine.Quantitative science studies · 2022Article
- Lessons Learned from Publicizing and Retracting an Erroneous Hypothesis on the Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) Vaccination with Unethical Implications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Article
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review.International journal of dentistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.