ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Integrity in Radiation Oncology Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Studies, Retraction Notices, and Their Impact on the Field.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Retractions in the scientific literature undermine research integrity and can have lasting effects on clinical and academic practices. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze retracted publications in the recent radiation oncology literature and to identify trends in study characteristics, reasons for retraction, and postretraction citation patterns. Methods and Materials: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Retracted studies in radiation oncology were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Retraction Watch, from May 1, 2017, to September 27, 2024, and June 16, 2025, respectively. Studies were included if they had a publicly available retraction notice. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, retraction reasons, and postretraction citation patterns. Descriptive statistics were used for data synthesis. Results: A total of 108 retracted studies were identified and analyzed. Most retracted studies were laboratory/experimental studies (39.8%). Median impact factor of retracted studies was 2.4 (IQR, 1.8-3.5). The primary reason for retraction was misconduct (77.8%), followed by methodological errors (13.9%) and authorship issues (5.6%). Retraction notices were issued primarily by publishers (50.0%). Most retracted articles (93.5%) were marked with a watermark, and retractions were indexed in PubMed in all cases. Median time from publication to retraction was 1.6 years (IQR, 1.0-3.2 years). Median number of citations after retraction was 1 (IQR, 0-3). Conclusions: This study found that retractions in radiation oncology remain generally rather rare events. However, prevalence of misconduct-related retractions in radiation oncology is high, and citations may persist after retraction. These findings emphasize the need for further enhanced oversight and clearer retraction policies to foster high-quality and sound research practices.
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.