ArticleBiomedical engineering online2020
Retraction Note to: Randomized controlled trial testing weight loss and abdominal obesity outcomes of moxibustion.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The epidemiology of errors in data capture, management, and analysis: A scoping review of retracted articles and retraction notices in clinical and translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Retraction of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article [1] because, after publication, concerns were raised regarding the study design and statistical analysis. Post-publication review has confirmed firstly that within-group changes were highlighted rather than between-group differences as appropriate for a randomized trial, and secondly that there are baseline differences between the groups that exist despite randomization for which analyses were not controlled. The data reported in this article are therefore unreliable. Ching-Hsiu Hsieh and Pei-Ying Chuang agree with this retraction. Chi-Chuan Tseng and Ju-Yu Shen have not responded to any correspondence from the publisher about this retraction.
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.