Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621514›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of investigation in health, psychology and education2022

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines.

Elena Pastor-Ramón, Ivan Herrera-Peco, Oskia Agirre, María García-Puente, José María Morán

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Preface of Special Issue "21st Century Health Communication Challenges: Public Health Emergencies".European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Elena Pastor-RamónVirtual Health Sciences Library of the Balearic Islands (Bibliosalut), 07120 Palma, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2609-6541
Ivan Herrera-PecoFaculty of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, 08018 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5183-5679
Oskia AgirrePublic Health and Paharmacy Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio, 28621 Madrid, Spain.
María García-PuenteFundación Jiménez Díaz, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6521-665X
José María MoránMetabolic Bone Diseases Research Group, Nursing Department, Nursing and Occupational Therapy College, University of Extremadura, 10003 Caceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5538-182X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.

Indexed as

biomedical publishingpublication ethicsresearch methodologyretraction of publicationscientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID35621514
PMCPMC9140878

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.