Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022137›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2025

A systematic analysis of temporal trends, characteristics, and citations of retracted stem cell publications.

Fei Song, Binghuo Wu, Gang Wei, Songtao Cheng, Lichao Wei, Wei Xiong, De Luo

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

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Fei Song *Department of Urology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Binghuo Wu *Institute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CAMS & PUMC), Chengdu, China.
Gang WeiDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Songtao ChengDepartment of Urology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Lichao WeiOrgan Transplant Center, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China , Chengdu, China.
Wei XiongDepartment of Urology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. xiongweimd@uestc.edu.cn.
De LuoDepartment of General Surgery (Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery), Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China. luode2019@swmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Luzhou Municipal People's Government-Southwest Medical University Science and Technology Strategic Cooperation Project 2024LZXNYDJ078National Natural Science Foundation of China 82300137Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital 2022QN01Southwest Medical University 2023YFS0240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of retracted publications in stem cell research presents significant challenges to scientific integrity. Although retraction notices are issued, retracted studies continue to be cited, facilitating the dissemination of unreliable findings. This study aimed to systematically explore the characteristics of retracted stem cell publications and evaluate the impact of retractions on subsequent citations.

methodsThis study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, Retraction Watch Database, and PubMed was conducted from their inception through July 25, 2024, to identify retracted stem cell publications. Characteristics including publication details, retraction reasons, and citation counts were extracted. To assess the impact of retraction on subsequent citations, we compared citation patterns between a random sample of retracted papers and matched non-retracted controls from identical journals and issues. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether papers citing retracted articles had an elevated risk of subsequent retraction. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, t-tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were used for data analysis.

resultsThe systematic search identified 1421 records, with 517 publications meeting inclusion criteria. Temporal analysis revealed two significant trends: an increasing retraction rate that peaked at 0.84% in 2023 and a declining time-to-retraction (median: 30 months, interquartile range: 13-60; Mann-Kendall, tau = - 0.29; P < 0.001). Hospital-affiliated researchers from China contributed to 244 (47.2%) of retractions. Data and image flaws were identified in 360 (69.6%) of retractions. Among 472 Web of Science-indexed retracted publications, 366 (77.5%) accumulated 4884 post-retraction citations, with 114 (24.2%) receiving more citations post-retraction than pre-retraction. Analysis of a random subset of retracted articles (n = 53) demonstrated that only 14 (4.2%) out of 334 post-retraction citations referenced the retraction notice. Compared with 639 non-retracted control publications, retracted articles showed significantly lower post-retraction citation rates (mean rank: 291.32 vs. 351.08; P = 0.01). Moreover, papers citing retracted articles exhibited an 11-fold higher risk of subsequent retraction (odds ratio (OR): 11.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.06-17.43).

conclusionsThis analysis reveals substantial research integrity challenges within stem cell research. These findings suggest the necessity for enhanced surveillance mechanisms and standardized protocols to identify and curtail the dissemination of flawed research.

Indexed as

Retraction of Publication as TopicStem Cell ResearchHumansRetracted publicationsStem cellSystematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID40022137
PMCPMC11871751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.