ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Analyzing retraction trends in urology: a comprehensive study over the last decade.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Critical reflections on "Analyzing Retraction trends in urology: A comprehensive study over the last decade" by Yanes et al.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate why retractions in academic literature have risen substantially, leading to rising concerns about research reliability and integrity. While retraction trends have been explored across disciplines, urology-specific factors remain underexamined. This study investigates 292 retracted urological publications from 2014 to 2024, focusing on open-access journals to analyze how publishing models influence retraction trends.
methodsA retrospective analysis of retracted urological publications was conducted using the PubMed database. The study employed 84 MeSH search terms to identify articles and categorize them by research type, journal impact factor, citation count, geographical distribution, and retraction reasons. Statistical analyses were performed to assess associations between retraction characteristics.
resultsThe most common reason for retraction (90.4%) was discrepancies in data availability or research description, with systematic publication manipulation accounting for 5.1%. The majority of retractions (84.5%) originated from China. Journals with higher impact factors exhibited longer recall times for retractions but no significant difference in citation count at recall.
conclusionThis study highlights the increasing frequency of retractions in urology and identifies key factors influencing these trends. Geographic disparities, open-access models, and journal impact factors play significant roles. Addressing research integrity requires improved editorial oversight, standardized reporting guidelines, and enhanced detection of publication misconduct.
Indexed as
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.