Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42616584›Full record

ArticleExperimental physiology2026

RETRACTION: Surgery in Space: The Ultimate Frontier.

Abstract readRetraction Notice
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

0 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

retractionM. Bashir, A. Murtada, M. Jubouri, A. Bashir, I. Williams, and D. Bailey, "Surgery in Space: The Ultimate Frontier," Experimental Physiology (2025): EP092765, 10.1113/EP092765. The above article, published online on 10 June 2025 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by the Physiological Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd., with the agreement of all authors. Following publication, concerns were raised by a third party that one of the references in the article could not be verified. A subsequent investigation by the editors found that 12 out of 23 citations could not be substantiated as they were presented in the published article. As a result, The Physiological Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd no longer have confidence in the article as a properly supported scholarly contribution and therefore agree that the article must be retracted.

Identifiers

PMID42616584
PMCPMC13489105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.