ArticleCancer medicine2025
RETRACTION: ING5-Mediated Antineuroblastoma Effects of Suberoylanilide Hydroxamic Acid.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
retractionJ.-C. Wu, H.-M. Jiang, X.-H. Yang and H.-C. Zheng, "ING5-Mediated Antineuroblastoma Effects of Suberoylanilide Hydroxamic Acid," Cancer Medicine 7, no. 9 (2018): 4554-4569, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1634. The above article, published online on 09 August 2018 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Stephen Tait; and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed upon due to the duplication of several protein bands in Figures 1H, 2H, and 5C, which were found in previously published articles by some of the same authors. The authors contacted the journal to explain that the errors were inadvertent and occurred because the studies were conducted simultaneously in the same laboratory; they also provided some data for evaluation. The authors state that the main conclusions of this manuscript are unaffected, but the extent and nature of the duplications have significantly undermined the editor's confidence in the validity of the results presented. 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.