ArticleInternational wound journal2024
RETRACTION: Wound incidence and outcomes in atrial fibrillation: Comparing catheter ablation and anti-arrhythmic drug therapy.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction of
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retraction: Z. Xinyu , X. Sheng , "Wound incidence and outcomes in atrial fibrillation: Comparing catheter ablation and anti-arrhythmic drug therapy," Int Wound J 21, no. 4 (2023): e14612, https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14612. The above article, published online on 21 December 2023, in Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/), has been retracted by agreement between the authors; the journal Editor-in-Chief, Professor Keith Harding; and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The authors submitted a request for retraction, reporting that the conclusions in the published article were partially inaccurate. Following an investigation by the publisher and Editor-in-Chief, they concluded that the peer review and publishing process were found to have been manipulated. The retraction has been agreed on because the findings reported in the article are not considered reliable. The authors did not respond to our notice of 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.