ArticleJAMA network open2026
Retracted Randomized Clinical Trials From Superretractors and Top-Cited Scientists With Multiple Retractions.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. 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.
- Cost of Retracted Articles to the NIH: a Living Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Multiple retractions from the same author often uncover issues affecting their entire work, such as having systematically altered or fabricated data. Objectives: To evaluate the contribution of authors with the most retractions (ie, superretractors) and top-cited scientists with multiple retractions to the retracted randomized clinical trial (RCT) literature. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study linked an openly available cohort of retracted RCTs (VITALITY) to 3 lists of scientists: (1) superretractors, totaling most retractions in the Retraction Watch Leaderboard; (2) scientists in the top 100 000 or 2% of their subfield in terms of citations (ie, top-cited scientists) over their entire careers who accumulated 10 or more retractions not due to editor or publisher errors; and (3) top-cited scientists in the most recent year (ie, 2024) who accumulated 10 or more retractions not due to editor or publisher errors. The VITALITY cohort was updated up to November 2024. The 3 author lists were updated in August 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were authorship and the characteristics of retracted RCTs (publication and retraction year, time between publication and retraction, number of citations). Results: A total of 30 superretractors, 163 career-long top-cited scientists with 10 or more retractions, and 174 recent-year top-cited scientists with 10 or more retractions were included; 1330 retracted RCTs were included. Overall, 6 superretractors (20%), representing anesthesiology as well as endocrinology and metabolism, coauthored 290 retracted RCTs (22%); 18 career-long top-cited scientists with at least 10 retractions, representing 10 fields, coauthored 327 trials (25%), 275 (84%) of which were also coauthored by a superretractor; 7 single-year top-cited scientists with at least 10 retractions coauthored 50 retracted RCTs (4%), all of which were also included in the list of articles authored by career-long top-cited scientists with at least 10 retractions. Articles with superretractor authors vs not were published earlier (median [IQR], 2000 [1997-2005] vs 2020 [2014-2022]); retracted earlier (median [IQR], 2013 [2012-2019] vs 2023 [2018.5-2023]); had a longer lag between publication and retraction (median [IQR], 5111 [3560-6820] days vs 482 [330-1119] days); and accrued more citations (median [IQR], 21 [12-42] vs 5 [1-19]). In multivariable regression models, only time to retraction (β = 0.02; P < .001) was significantly and positively associated with total citations. Results were similar when comparing retracted articles from top-cited scientists with at least 10 retractions vs other articles. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 1330 retracted RCTs, a small number of influential authors, often coauthors and concentrated across few fields of medicine, accounted for a significant proportion of retracted clinical trials.
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.