A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine

European Journal of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 19-23

  Chauvin, Anthony ^a,d,e   De Villelongue, Cedric ^b   Pateron, Dominique ^c,f   Yordanov, Youri ^c,e,f,g  

^a HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^b CHU BRETONNEAU   (France)

^c ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^d Université Diderot Paris 7   (France)

^e HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^f SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^g HÔPITAL SAINT ANTOINE   (France)

Author keywords

emergency medicine; retraction; review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EDITOR; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; EUROPE; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; MEDLINE; MISCONDUCT; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION NOTICE; SCIENTIST; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMANS; PLAGIARISM; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85058747052     PISSN: 09699546     EISSN: 14735695     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000491     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109:17028-17033. (Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:1137).
2. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One 2012; 7:e44118.
3. Rosenkrantz AB. Retracted publications within radiology journals. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206:231-235.
4. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud - hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2393-2395.
5. Taylor DB. Journal club: plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to the AJR: development of an optimal screening algorithm and management pathways. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208:712-720.
6. Oransky I. How publish or perish promotes inaccuracy in science - and journalism. AMA J Ethics 2015; 17:1172-1175.
7. ETH. Report of the ETH Commission. Available at: https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/news/medienmitteilungen/2015/PDF/untersuchungsbericht/Report-of-ETH-Commission-Voinnet.pdf. [Accessed 8 March 2016].
8. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics 2011; 37:688-692.
9. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? J Med Ethics 2012; 38:228-232.
10. Zarychanski R, Abou-Setta AM, Turgeon AF, Houston BL, McIntyre L, Marshall JC, Fergusson DA. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2013; 309:678-688.
11. Wise J. Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ 2013; 346:f1738.
12. Haase N, Perner A, Hennings LI, Siegemund M, Lauridsen B, Wetterslev M, Wetterslev J. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ 2013; 346:f839.
13. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Lauridsen B, Wetterslev M, Wetterslev J. Committee of publication ethics retraction guidelines. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf; 2009. [Accessed 8 March 2016].
14. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 2006; 185:152-154.
15. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 2011; 37:113-117.
16. Fanelli D. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 2013; 494:149.
17. Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J 2014; 28:3847-3855.
18. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective crosssectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e012047.
19. Yan J, MacDonald A, Baisi LP, Evaniew N, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Retractions in orthopaedic research: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5:263-268.
20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000097.
21. European Association of Science Editors. EASE toolkit for journal editors. Available at: https://www.ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-journaleditors/. [Accessed 12 October 2016].
22. Scopus. Available at: https://www.scopus.com/. [Accessed 9 March 2017].
23. Lee CH, Shih CP, Chang YC, Chaou CH. The evolution of academic performance in emergency medicine journals: viewpoint from 2000 to 2009 journal citation reports. Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18:898-904.
24. Marcus A, Oransky I. What studies of retraction show us. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2014; 15:151-154.
25. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 2013; 8:e68397.
26. Greitemeyer T. Article retracted, but the message lives on. Psychon Bull Rev 2014; 21:557-561.