Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32233020›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2020

Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review.

Antonio Rapani, Teresa Lombardi, Federico Berton, Veronica Del Lupo, Roberto Di Lenarda, Claudio Stacchi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Antonio RapaniDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Teresa LombardiDepartment of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Federico BertonDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Veronica Del LupoDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Roberto Di LenardaDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Claudio StacchiDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4017-4980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018.

results180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four-year period (2014-2018), when compared with 2009-2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher-related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable.

conclusionsRetractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatabases, FactualDentistryFraudHumansPeriodicals as TopicRetraction of Publication as TopicScientific Experimental ErrorScientific Misconductcitationsretracted publicationscientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID32233020
PMCPMC7453776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.