ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2026
Research integrity within systematic reviews: investigating the prevalence of studies by authors with multiple retraction histories in Cochrane reviews.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch misconduct poses a significant threat to the integrity of evidence synthesis. Although Cochrane reviews are known for rigorous methodological standards, the potential inclusion of studies authored by researchers with substantial retractions records raises concerns about the reliability of their conclusions.
objectivesThis study aims to (a) quantify the extent to which Cochrane reviews include or cite papers authored by researchers with at least 24 retractions (as listed in the Retraction Watch Leaderboard),and (b) examine whether sensitivity analyses were performed and identify the stated reasons for excluding those studies from the reviews.
methodsThe Retraction Watch database was used to identify researchers with 24 or more retractions in the database. This was done with custom code in Stata, created to identify individuals with > 24 entries. Data on Cochrane's systematic reviews that included or referenced the studies by authors with 24 or more retraction records was collected. For reviews where these studies were excluded, the stated reasons for exclusion were recorded. We also assessed the frequency and nature of sensitivity analyses conducted to account for potential bias from problematic studies.
resultsOf 9,323 Cochrane Reviews, 81(0.9%)included or cited at least one potentially fraudulent study. 57(0.6%) of these reviews referenced and 32(0.3%) included such studies in meta-analyses. In cases where such studies were excluded, the justification was typically unrelated to trustworthiness. Of the 32 reviews that include potentially fraudulent studies, only a minority of reviews (19%, 6 out of 32) conducted sensitivity analyses after paper exclusions, primarily due to retracted papers, with only one analysis conducted in response to potential fraudulent studies.
conclusionThe inclusion or insufficient handling of studies by highly retracted researchers in Cochrane reviews without sensitivity analysis highlights the concerns regarding the integrity and reliability of evidence used to guide clinical practice. This study underscores the need for formal mechanisms to assess author trustworthiness, recommends transparency in handling these studies, and calls for sensitivity analyses to be mandatory.
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.