Abstract
Objectives To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when their included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.
Design A meta-epidemiological study.
Data sources The Retraction Watch Database.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs on Web of Science.
Review methods We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves by visually inspecting their current web pages. We summarized the proportion of correction and the time from retraction to correction.
Results We identified 98 retracted RCTs as well as 360 articles (335 SRs and 25 CPGs) citing them. Among the 360 articles, 157 (44%) were published after the retraction, 203 (56%) were published before retraction. Among 77 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 203 articles published before retraction, 149 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, one SR was retracted due to plagiarism. Only 5% of SRs (6/130) and 11% of CPGs (2/18) corrected their results.
Conclusions A large number of SRs and CPGs included already retracted RCTs without caution and never corrected themselves. When SRs and CPGs had included RCTs which were later retracted, only a small minority corrected their evidence syntheses. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.
What is already known on this topic
- Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aggregating randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are important sources of information for clinical decision making.
- There are anecdotal reports of publications citing retracted RCTs and point to the problem of their continued citation after retraction.
- However, there are no studies that comprehensively examined the fate of retracted RCTs on SRs and CPGs in their evidence synthesis.
What this study adds
- A considerable number of SRs and CPGs cited already retracted RCTs and none corrected themselves later.
- Only a small minority of SRs (5%, 6/130) and CPGs (11%, 2/18) which cited RCTs that were later retracted corrected their findings after the retraction was announced.
- The results indicate that publishers and researchers should make efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCT.
Competing Interest Statement
TAF reports grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, personal fees from SONY, grants and personal fees from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; In addition, TAF has a patent 2020-548587 concerning smartphone CBT apps pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. The other authors have no conflict of interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Dataset available from the corresponding author upon the request.
