Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future
Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100201
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Berghella, Vincenzo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bennett, Carrie;Chambers, Laura M.;Berghella, Vincenzo
背景：发表无效的科学发现可能对医疗实践产生深远的影响。随着文章撤回的发生率在过去20年中增加，包括撤回观察在内的组织已经形成，以提高科学出版的透明度。目前，产科和母胎医学文献中文章撤回的发生率尚不清楚。目的：本研究旨在确定PubMed和Retraction Watch数据库中产科和母胎医学文献中撤回文章的数量，并检查撤回的原因。对PubMed和Retraction Watch数据库进行了回顾性审查，以确定从1999年至12月31日产科和母胎医学文献中撤回的文章，2019.主要结局定义为识别出的文章数量和撤回原因。在PubMed中，使用医学副标题检索分类为撤回或撤回的文章来识别文章。此外，还查询了撤回观察数据库，排除了非产科文章。根据撤回观察中列出的类别对撤回原因进行分类。根据母胎医学协会标准对主题进行分类。从撤回的文章中收集数据，包括作者姓名、国家、期刊名称和影响因子、出版和撤回年份、研究类型和出版期刊的反应。结果：在Retraction Watch的519篇妇产科文章中，122篇（23.5%）是专门针对产科和母胎医学专业的。此外，从PubMed中确定了39例（32.0%），所有这些病例均纳入撤回观察。撤回的中位时间为1年（范围，0-17），每篇文章的中位引用次数为3次（范围，0-145）。此外，期刊影响因子的中位数为2.2（范围为0.1-27.6），第一作者和资深作者赫希指数的中位数分别为6.0和13.5。大多数文章为原创研究（n=80; 65.6%），特别是回顾性研究（n=11; 9.0%）、病例报告（n=19; 15.6%）、前瞻性研究（n=18; 14.8%）、随机对照试验（n=11; 9%）、基础科学（n=18; 14.8%）和系统综述或荟萃分析（n=3; 2.5%）。在符合条件的文章中，32篇（26.2%）发表在影响因子>= 4的期刊上，21篇（17.2%）发表在前10位影响因子妇产科期刊上。大多数撤回是因为内容相关问题（n=87; 71.3%），包括21.3%（n=26）的文章重复，18.9%（n=23）的剽窃，16.4%（n=20）的结果或方法错误。其他原因包括作者不当行为（n=12; 9.8%）、不可重现结果（n=11; 9.0%）和伪造（n=8; 6.6%）。最常见的期刊回应是发表撤回声明（n=82; 67.2%）。在19篇撤回的文章中，缺乏撤回通知和出版期刊提供的信息有限（15.6%）。结论：在产科和母胎医学文献中，科学文章的撤回正在增加，最常见的是与科学不端行为有关，包括文章重复和剽窃。期刊和医疗机构需要改进预防和检测，以确保无效的发现不会在医学文献中永久存在，从而避免对孕产妇和围产期护理造成不良后果。
BACKGROUND: The publication of invalid scientific findings may have profound implications on medical practice. As the incidence of article retractions has increased over the last 2 decades, organizations have formed, including Retraction Watch, to improve the transparency of scientific publishing. At present, the incidence of article retraction in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature is unclear.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number of retracted articles within the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases and examine reasons for retraction.STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases was performed to identify retracted articles in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from indexation through December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the number of identified articles and reason for retraction. Within PubMed, articles were identified using a medical subheading search for articles categorized as withdrawn or retracted. In addition, the Retraction Watch database was queried and non obstetrical articles were excluded. The reason for retraction was classified according to the categories listed in Retraction Watch. The subject matter was classified on the basis of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine criteria. Data were collected from retracted articles for author name, country, journal name and impact factor, year of publication and retraction, study type, and response of the publishing journal. Descriptive statistics were performed.RESULTS: Of the 519 obstetrics and gynecology articles in Retraction Watch, 122 (23.5%) were specific to the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine specialties. In addition, 39 (32.0%) were identified from PubMed, all of which were included in Retraction Watch. There was a median time to retraction of 1 (range, 0-17) year, with a median of 3 citations per article (range, 0-145). In addition, the median journal impact factor was 2.2 (range, 0.1-27.6), with median first and senior author Hirsch index values of 6.0 and 13.5, respectively. Most articles were original research (n=80; 65.6%), specifically retrospective studies (n=11; 9.0%), case reports (n=19; 15.6%), prospective studies (n=18; 14.8%), randomized controlled trials (n=11; 9%), basic science (n=18; 14.8%), and systematic review or meta-analysis (n=3; 2.5%). Of eligible articles, 32 (26.2%) were published in journals with an impact factor >= 4, and 21 articles (17.2%) were published in the top 10 leading impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals. Most retractions were for content-related issues (n=87; 71.3%), including 21.3% (n=26) for article duplication, 18.9% (n=23) for plagiarism, and 16.4% (n=20) for errors in results or methods. Additional reasons included author misconduct (n=12; 9.8%), nonreproducible results (n=11; 9.0%), and falsification (n=8; 6.6%). The most common journal response was an issued statement of retraction (n=82; 67.2%). Lack of retraction notice and limited to no information provided by the publishing journal occurred in 19 retracted articles (15.6%).CONCLUSION: In the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature, retraction of scientific articles is increasing and is most often related to scientific misconduct, including article duplication and plagiarism. Improved prevention and detection are warranted by journals and healthcare institutions to ensure that invalid findings are not perpetuated in the medical literature, thereby avoiding adverse consequences for maternal and perinatal care.