OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Future cardiology
2024;20 (9): 471-477.

An analysis of retracted studies in cardiology in the last two decades.

Akash Sharma, Vidusha Karavadi, Harshini Suresh, Sowntappan Balasubramanian, Priyali Singh, Parteek Walia, U Venkatesh
Author Information
  1. Akash Sharma: Department of Medicine, University at Buffalo - Catholic Health System, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA. ORCID
  2. Vidusha Karavadi: Department of Community Medicine, Rajarajeswari Medical College & Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560060, India.
  3. Harshini Suresh: SingHealth Duke-NUS Global Health Institute, Duke-NUS Medical School, 169857, Singapore.
  4. Sowntappan Balasubramanian: Department of Community Medicine, Seth G S Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai 400012, India.
  5. Priyali Singh: Prateek Medical Center, Basti, Uttar Pradesh 272001, India.
  6. Parteek Walia: Department of Community Medicine & Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273008, India.
  7. U Venkatesh: Department of Community Medicine & Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273008, India.
PMID: 38980315 DOI: 10.1080/14796678.2024.2370698

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze retracted studies in cardiovascular field. PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify retracted publications from 2002 to 2022. Various characteristics of articles were retrieved, and an analysis was performed using R software. We finally included 979 articles. Authors from China have the highest number of retracted studies (35.5%), followed by the USA (22.1%), and Japan (4%). The most common causes of retraction are mistakes and honest errors (24.5%) and duplicate data (17.7%). From 2002 to 2022, there has been a significant increase in retracted studies and a decrease in the impact factor of journals, number of citations, and time to retraction. The trend of retracting publications in cardiology is increasing.

Keywords

cardiology randomized controlled trial retraction study design trend

References

  1. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2118263 [PMID: 34292337]
  2. JAMA. 2023 Apr 18;329(15):1253-1254 [PMID: 36939740]
  3. Acad Radiol. 2023 Jun;30(6):1148-1152 [PMID: 35977877]
  4. Nature. 2023 Dec;624(7992):479-481 [PMID: 38087103]
  5. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 27;16(10):e0258935 [PMID: 34705841]
  6. Scientometrics. 2023;128(5):2935-2943 [PMID: 37101974]
  7. EMBO Rep. 2007 May;8(5):422-3 [PMID: 17471252]
  8. Pak J Med Sci. 2016 Nov-Dec;32(6):1562-1567 [PMID: 28083065]
  9. Account Res. 2022 Aug;29(6):347-378 [PMID: 33882262]
  10. Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8 [PMID: 15944677]
  11. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 23;6(11):e012047 [PMID: 27881524]
  12. Int J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 15;349:109-114 [PMID: 34921899]
  13. PLoS One. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0277814 [PMID: 36477092]
  14. Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7 [PMID: 18064739]
  15. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):296-7 [PMID: 9676689]

MeSH Term

Humans
Retraction of Publication as Topic
Cardiology
Biomedical Research
Periodicals as Topic
Scientific Misconduct
Journal Impact Factor
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0retractedstudiesretractioncardiologystudypublications20022022articlesanalysisnumber5%trendaimanalyzecardiovascularfieldPubMedEmbasedatabasesusedidentifyVariouscharacteristicsretrievedperformedusingRsoftwarefinallyincluded979AuthorsChinahighest35followedUSA221%Japan4%commoncausesmistakeshonesterrors24duplicatedata177%significantincreasedecreaseimpactfactorjournalscitationstimeretractingincreasinglasttwodecadesrandomizedcontrolledtrialdesign

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.