The Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviews.

Ivan Herrera-Peco, Azucena Santillán-García, José María Morán, Jessica Marian Goodman-Casanova, Daniel Cuesta-Lozano
Author Information
  1. Ivan Herrera-Peco: Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28691 Madrid, Spain. ORCID
  2. Azucena Santillán-García: University Hospital of Burgos, 09006 Burgos, Spain. ORCID
  3. José María Morán: Nursing Department, Nursing and Occupational Therapy College, Universidad de Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain. ORCID
  4. Jessica Marian Goodman-Casanova: Department of Mental Health, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA), 29010 Málaga, Spain. ORCID
  5. Daniel Cuesta-Lozano: Nurse Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nursing and Physiotherapy Department, University of Alcalá, 28805 Madrid, Spain. ORCID

Abstract

Today, evidence-based nursing practice strives to improve health care, ensure adherence to treatment, improve health outcomes, and guarantee patient safety. The main scientific documents that nurses should consult, to obtain the best possible evidence, are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, this type of scientific document has a major issue if it uses retracted articles that could directly affect the consistency of the results shown in the reviews. The aim of this commentary is to present the current issue represented by the use of retracted articles in meta-analyses of systematic reviews and how researchers could detect them, through the use of different instruments, avoiding them, and providing a reliable SR or meta-analysis that could be useful for day-to-day clinical and research activities.

Keywords

References

  1. J Prof Nurs. 2005 Nov-Dec;21(6):351-7 [PMID: 16311230]
  2. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jul 28;18(1):172 [PMID: 30055612]
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):6-10 [PMID: 19926445]
  4. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Dec;116:133-134 [PMID: 31306745]
  5. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Feb;20(2):97-100 [PMID: 24354996]
  6. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1 [PMID: 25554246]
  7. Cancer Nurs. 2020 May/Jun;43(3):173-176 [PMID: 32324609]
  8. J Nurs Manag. 2018 Nov;26(8):918-932 [PMID: 30198088]
  9. Trends Hear. 2017 Jan-Dec;21:2331216517706397 [PMID: 28752808]
  10. J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Mar 19;33(12):e92 [PMID: 29542301]
  11. Gac Sanit. 2020 Aug 22;: [PMID: 32843194]
  12. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jul 11;19(1):259 [PMID: 31296212]
  13. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Oct;25(5):172-177 [PMID: 31806620]
  14. Korean J Intern Med. 2018 Mar;33(2):277-283 [PMID: 29277096]
  15. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 23;6(11):e012047 [PMID: 27881524]
  16. JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):171-9 [PMID: 25005654]
  17. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020 Oct;17(5):404-405 [PMID: 32212209]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0reviewsretractedarticlesevidence-basedpracticeimprovehealthscientificnursessystematicmeta-analysesissueuseresearchTodaynursingstrivescareensureadherencetreatmentoutcomesguaranteepatientsafetymaindocumentsconsultobtainbestpossibleevidenceHowevertypedocumentmajorusesdirectlyaffectconsistencyresultsshownaimcommentarypresentcurrentrepresentedresearchersdetectdifferentinstrumentsavoidingprovidingreliableSRmeta-analysisusefulday-to-dayclinicalactivitiesEvidence-BasedPracticeSilentEnemy:RetractedArticlesUseSystematicReviewsmethodology

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)