ArticleHeliyon2024
Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The retraction of publications is a crucial aspect of scientific integrity; it aims to correct the literature and alert scholars and the general public by identifying and labelling articles that contain erroneous data, unreliable findings, or flawed conclusions. Identifying and characterizing retracted articles within the scientific literature is thus very important. The aims of this article were to characterize retracted articles in the ophthalmological literature. One hundred and fifty-one retracted articles published between 1966 and 2023 were retrieved. The number of retracted articles showed an upward trend from 2020 onwards. Ocular oncology (n = 37, 24.5 %) was the most frequently represented subspeciality in the retracted articles, despite retina and uveitis being the most published. The most frequent reason for retraction was fake data (n = 62, 38 %). The labelling of retracted articles on some websites was unsatisfactory, especially on the free-access illegal platform Sci-Hub. On the other hand, platforms such as Dimensions, Scite and Retraction Watch exhibit promising accuracy. Improving the labelling of retractions is needed to reduce the citation of articles after they have been retracted. Solutions to reach this goal are discussed in this article.
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.