ArticleRheumatology international2026
Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the dynamics of scientific integrity in the literature by analyzing bibliometric characteristics, temporal trends, and reasons for retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain. This cross-sectional study analyzed publications retrieved in the Scopus database using the keywords "pregnancy" and "pain" and tagged as "retracted". Publication year, retraction year, country, journal, subject area, keywords, citation counts, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and reasons for retraction were evaluated. Temporal trends were examined using linear regression, and the correlation between citation counts and AAS was analyzed using Spearman's rho test. A total of 55 retracted publications were examined. A significant upward trend over time was identified (β = 0.36; p = 0.017). These retractions originated from 17 countries, notably from Egypt (n = 19) and China (n = 14). The primary reason for retraction was data integrity issues (n = 20), followed by peer review problems (n = 13) and duplication (n = 9). The median citation count was 8 (0-80), and the median AAS score was 0 (0-659). A positive, significant correlation between citation numbers and AAS scores was reported (rho = 0.35; p = 0.008). Retractions have grown over time, mainly due to data integrity and peer review-publication processes. Citations and digital visibility of retracted studies, especially in clinical contexts, need careful monitoring. The results highlight the importance of rigorous research design, data transparency, and editorial oversight in upholding scientific integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853401What 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.