ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2026
Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetraction serves as a critical mechanism for correcting flawed publications and preserving the integrity of the scientific literature. Systematic analysis focused on retractions in Central Nervous System (CNS) tumor research is still lacking. This study characterized retracted CNS tumor publications regarding temporal trends, geographic distribution, retraction reasons, citation patterns, and retraction lag. METHODOLOGY: Retraction data were downloaded from the Crossref/Retraction Watch Database on December 31, 2025. CNS tumor‑related retractions were identified using tumor terms derived from the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Eligible records were screened manually, and tumor type, article type, retraction reason, first-author country, author count and time to retraction were extracted. Citation data were retrieved from Web of Science, and journal impact factor (JIF) and quartile were obtained from the 2024 Journal Citation Reports. Descriptive statistics, the Mann-Kendall test and Kruskal‑Wallis test were used.
results582 CNS tumor articles were included. CNS tumor retractions increased over time and peaked in 2023. "Gliomas, glioneuronal tumors, and neuronal tumors" accounted for 74.57% (434/582). 80.58% (469/582) were retracted due to misconduct. In terms of absolute numbers, China was the leading first‑author country, followed by USA and India. Basic research accounted for 75.26% (438/582). The median time to retraction was 805.5 days (IQR: 423.25-1,711 days). A total of 515 articles received at least one citation (total citations 12,151), and 89.71% (462/515) had citation after retraction. The median pre‑retraction, post‑retraction, and total citations were 5 (IQR: 1-17), 3 (IQR: 1-7), and 10 (IQR: 3-24), respectively. Significant differences were observed in normalized citation counts and retraction lag across most retraction reason categories, JIF and quartiles, article types, author counts, and first‑author countries.
conclusionsCNS tumor retractions have increased markedly as the primary driver. The persistent post-retraction citation of flawed research highlights a critical gap threatening evidence-based neuro-oncology.
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.