Abstract
Objective:Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood.Methods:Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication.Results:Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction.Conclusions:Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.
Highlights
Retracted publications present a complicated problem for systematic reviews
When considering the differences between retracted items that were cited in systematic reviews and those that were not cited in systematic reviews, we found statistically significant differences in their reason for retraction (X2(4,1396)=83.46, p
Retracted publications cited in systematic reviews were associated with retraction due to scientific distortion—falsification or manipulation and having been published in JIF Q1 or Q2 journals
Summary
Retracted publications present a complicated problem for systematic reviews. Because few health care providers have capacity to search for and read multiple original research articles to address a clinical question, systematic reviews are intended to serve as identifiable evidence upon which clinical decisions can be made. This has resulted in an inherent expectation among clinicians that these works can be relied upon consistently. Though retracted publications comprise a small segment of the scientific and medical literature, their presence in systematic reviews holds potential to cause harm by influencing patient care and future research [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
