ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2025
RETRACTION: Comparison of the Postoperative Analgesic Effects of Paracetamol-Codeine Phosphate and Naproxen Sodium-Codeine Phosphate for Lumbar Disk Surgery.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2025. 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: R. Polat , K. Peker , Ç. T. Gülöksüz , J. Ergil , T. Akkaya , "Comparison of the Postoperative Analgesic Effects of Paracetamol-Codeine Phosphate and Naproxen Sodium-Codeine Phosphate for Lumbar Disk Surgery," Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 31, no. 9 (2015): 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2015.07.001. The above article, published online on 06 August 2015, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Wan-Long Chuang; Kaohsiung Medical University; and John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. In 2021, a third party raised concerns regarding evidence of unlikely similarity in the standard deviation values presented in Figures 1 and 2. The journal contacted the authors, who provided original data for evaluation by the journal. Following further correspondence, the journal and publisher concluded that the authors' response satisfied their concerns and that the investigation should be closed without further action. In 2024, the complainant appealed to the journal and publisher to re-open the investigation based on the substantial evidence of errors. The publisher accepted this appeal and re-opened the investigation. The editors have conducted a review of the evidence and the provided dataset and found that the data includes substantial numbers of duplicated values across pairs of patients. The editors have determined that the substantial quantity of duplicated values is incompatible with a genuine randomized controlled trial and that the evidence compromises the conclusions of the article. As such, the parties agree that a retraction is necessary. The authors disagree with the 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.