ArticleGynecologic and obstetric investigation2026
Retraction Statement.
Article in Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 2026. 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
The article "Effects of Low Luteinizing Hormone Serum Levels on Oocyte Retrieval, Fertilization Rate, and Embryo Quality during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation: Results from a Prospective Cohort Analysis" [Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2024;89(1):50-58; https://doi.org/10.1159/000534860] by Jessica Dragotto, Giovanni Buzzaccarini, Andrea Etrusco, Antonio Simone Laganà, Renato Venezia, Sanja Terzic, Miriam Dellino, Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou, Vittorio Unfer, Bianca Bianco, Paolo Casadio, and Giovanni Bracchitta has been retracted by the Publisher and the Editors.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the mean demographic values in the article. The authors responded to the request for comment and provided original data for the study. Review of the provided data raised further concerns regarding a nonnormal distribution of participant ages and a difference between the data reported in the article and that calculated from the data. The authors responded to the concerns and stated that the data provided is that underlying the article and discrepancies may be due to a small cohort size and differences in the statistical tools used for mean calculations. The response was found by the editors to be unsatisfactory to address the concerns, which was determined to undermine the reliability of the results in the article and therefore, the article has been retracted.Andrea Etrusco acknowledged the retraction decision and stated that his role in the study was limited to administrative/correspondence communications and stated that he had no role in the study design, conduct, data management, data verification, or analysis. Jessica Dragotto acknowledged the retraction decision and affirmed the above regarding the role of Andrea Etrusco in the study. Bianco Bianco acknowledged the retraction, agreed with the decision and stated that her role was limited to critical review of the manuscript after its completion and without responsibilities or any relation with the study as a whole, from the inception to the manuscript elaboration. The remaining authors did not respond to notification of the retraction decision within the timeframe specified.
Identifiers
41950103What 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.