ArticleJAMA network open2019
Assessment of Citations of the Retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Irreproducible research and a typology of replication efforts.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- CME Expects Transparency and Independence in Research Studies.Journal of CME · 2026Article
- Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Assessing citation integrity in biomedical publications: corpus annotation and NLP models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report.Research integrity and peer review · 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
- Significance and implications of accurate and proper citations in clinical research studies.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Rethinking the history of peptic ulcer disease and its relevance for network epistemology.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021Article
- Scite.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Review
- Measuring the quality of scientific references in Wikipedia: an analysis of more than 115M citations to over 800 000 scientific articles.The FEBS journal · 2021Article
- 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
- An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Article
- A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Towards Knowledge Maintenance in Scientific Digital Libraries with the Keystone Framework.Proceedings of the ... ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The number of citations can be used to show the influence of an article or to measure the validity of a research study. The article by Wakefield et al that fraudulently reported an association between vaccination and autism continues to accumulate citations even after it was retracted. Objectives: To examine the characteristics of citations from scholarly literature that reference the 1998 article by Wakefield et al and to investigate whether authors are accurately citing retracted references. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional bibliographic analysis of the scholarly publications that cited a 1998 article by Wakefield et al, cited references were collected from a Web of Science Core Collection search performed on March 11, 2019. A total of 1211 articles were identified, with 58 citing works excluded because they were non-English-language publications or the citation to the study by Wakefield et al could not be located by reviewers. Citing works consisted of books, research articles, letters, editorials, news items, and other scholarly literature. Citations to the article by Wakefield et al were identified and analyzed by 2 reviewers in a blinded screening. Reviewers assigned a characteristic to each citation and indicated whether the retraction was documented. Main Outcomes and Measures: The characteristics of citations to the article by Wakefield et al, were categorized as negative, affirmative, or contrastive; if not, persuasive; and if not, assumptive, perfunctory, methodologic, or conceptual. Whether the partial retraction or notice of retraction was included in the citing work was also documented. Results: Among the 1153 citing works included in this analysis, the most common citation characteristics were negative (838 [72.7%]) followed by perfunctory (106 [9.2%]) and affirmative (94 [8.2%]). A total of 123 of 322 citing works (38.2%) published between 2005 and 2010 documented the partial retraction. After the notice of retraction was published in 2010, the percentage of citing works that documented the partial retraction and/or notice of retraction between 2011 and 2018 increased to 360 of 502 (71.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Since the article by Wakefield et al was initially published, authors have mostly negated the findings of the study. A significant number of authors did not document retractions of the article by Wakefield et al. The findings suggest that improvements are needed from publishers, bibliographic databases, and citation management software to ensure that retracted articles are accurately documented.
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.