Article type
Abstract
Background: The foundation of evidence-based medical practice and the development of clinical guidelines are heavily reliant on the integrity of the medical literature. However, the retraction of articles due to fraud poses a considerable threat, potentially leading to the dissemination of inaccurate information, adversely affecting patient outcomes, and eroding public trust in the medical profession.
Objectives: This study aims to quantify the prevalence and examine the impact of fraudulent research and article retractions within peer-reviewed medical literature from 2000 to 2023. It seeks to identify patterns in retracted articles, assess the repercussions on clinical practice guidelines, and suggest measures to mitigate future fraud, enhancing guideline development against the backdrop of retraction.
Methods: Employing a systematic review across databases like PubMed and MEDLINE, we identified retracted articles attributed to fraudulent data, misconduct, or ethical violations. Our analysis encompassed the reasons for retraction, the lag from publication to retraction, the impact factors of the journals involved, and the frequency of citations pre-retraction. Additionally, we surveyed clinicians to understand their awareness and the perceived impact of retractions on their clinical practice.
Results: Our comprehensive review revealed a marked increase in retractions, escalating from under 100 per year before 2000 to around 1,500 by 2023, with a significant peak observed from 2011 to 2021. Notably, articles retracted due to misconduct accounted for 60% of cases, highlighting the prevalence of fraud. High-impact journals were disproportionately affected, suggesting a correlation between journal prestige and the likelihood of retraction. Despite retractions, over 70% of such articles continued to receive citations, underscoring the persistent influence of discredited research. Surveyed clinicians reported limited awareness of specific retractions, with only 15% feeling adequately informed, though 85% acknowledged general concerns about the reliability of medical literature.
Conclusions: Fraudulent research and the subsequent retraction of articles, albeit infrequent, have profound implications for clinical practice and patient safety. The findings underscore the critical need for improved detection of fraud, education on the critical appraisal of literature, and stronger post-publication review processes. Implementing these measures can uphold the integrity of medical research and ensure the generation of reliable evidence that supports patient care.
Objectives: This study aims to quantify the prevalence and examine the impact of fraudulent research and article retractions within peer-reviewed medical literature from 2000 to 2023. It seeks to identify patterns in retracted articles, assess the repercussions on clinical practice guidelines, and suggest measures to mitigate future fraud, enhancing guideline development against the backdrop of retraction.
Methods: Employing a systematic review across databases like PubMed and MEDLINE, we identified retracted articles attributed to fraudulent data, misconduct, or ethical violations. Our analysis encompassed the reasons for retraction, the lag from publication to retraction, the impact factors of the journals involved, and the frequency of citations pre-retraction. Additionally, we surveyed clinicians to understand their awareness and the perceived impact of retractions on their clinical practice.
Results: Our comprehensive review revealed a marked increase in retractions, escalating from under 100 per year before 2000 to around 1,500 by 2023, with a significant peak observed from 2011 to 2021. Notably, articles retracted due to misconduct accounted for 60% of cases, highlighting the prevalence of fraud. High-impact journals were disproportionately affected, suggesting a correlation between journal prestige and the likelihood of retraction. Despite retractions, over 70% of such articles continued to receive citations, underscoring the persistent influence of discredited research. Surveyed clinicians reported limited awareness of specific retractions, with only 15% feeling adequately informed, though 85% acknowledged general concerns about the reliability of medical literature.
Conclusions: Fraudulent research and the subsequent retraction of articles, albeit infrequent, have profound implications for clinical practice and patient safety. The findings underscore the critical need for improved detection of fraud, education on the critical appraisal of literature, and stronger post-publication review processes. Implementing these measures can uphold the integrity of medical research and ensure the generation of reliable evidence that supports patient care.