Retraction of: "Risk factors for poor ovarian response in patients receiving in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer".

The paper entitled "Risk factors for poor ovarian response in patients receiving in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer" by Chen et al., which was published in Minerva Surgery 2023 June;78(3):303-4, has been retracted by the Publisher upon the authors' request; they asked for a retraction because the paper contains faulty data.

Current trends in retraction of plastic surgery and reconstruction research.

BACKGROUND: Various studies regarding retractions of publications have determined the rate of retraction has increased in recent years. Although this trend may apply to any field, there is a paucity of literature exploring the publication of erroneous studies within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aims to identify trends in frequency and reasons for retraction of plastic and reconstructive surgery studies, with analysis of subspecialty and journals. METHODS: A database search was conducted for retracted papers within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The initial search yielded 2347 results, which were analyzed by two independent reviewers. 77 studies were jointly identified for data collection. RESULTS: The most common reasons for retractions were duplication (n = 20, 25.9 %), request of author (n = 15, 19.5 %), plagiarism (n = 9, 11.6 %), error (n = 9, 11.6 %), fraud (n = 2, 2.6 %), and conflict of interest (n = 1, 1.3 %). 15 were basic science studies (19.4 %), 58 were clinical science studies (75.3 %), and 4 were not categorized (5.2 %). Subspecialties of retracted papers were maxillofacial (n = 29, 37.7 %), reconstructive (n = 17, 22.0 %), wound healing (n = 8, 10.4 %), burn (n = 6, 7.8 %), esthetics (n = 5, 6.5 %), breast (n = 3, 3.9 %), and trauma (n = 1, 1.3 %). Mean impact factor was 2.9 and average time from publication to retraction was 32 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of retracted plastic surgery studies revealed a recent rise in frequency of retractions, spanning a wide spectrum of journals and subspecialties.

Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). CONCLUSION: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends in Retracted Spine Literature: 2000-2023.

BACKGROUND: Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature. METHODS: Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by 2 independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication. RESULTS: Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n = 70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n = 58), followed by plagiarism (n = 22), and peer review process manipulation (n = 16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (P = 0.01). China (n = 63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.

Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.

Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.

An analysis of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Review of retracted articles has a positive impact on scientific research. The aim of our study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases. METHODS: The Retraction Watch database was queried for retractions in pancreatic diseases on 7 March 2021, and the filters set were as follows: (1) the Title typed in was "pancreatitis", "pancreas", or "pancreatic"; (2) the Nature of notice selected was "retraction". RESULTS: A total of 116 retracted articles were identified as pancreatic disease-related, with over two-thirds of them pertaining to pancreatic cancer. Research article was the most common article type among these retractions. Common reasons given for retraction included scientific fraud (37.1%), duplication (26.7%), and reliability (25%). China had the largest number of retractions (n=51), followed by the United States (n=47). Most articles were retracted in recent years, particularly after 2015. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of retracted articles pertaining to pancreatic diseases have been retracted in recent years. The majority of publications-over three quarters-were retracted for authors who committed some type of misconduct. Differences between countries in the manner of misconduct were stark.

Risk factors of COVID-19 mortality: a systematic review of current literature and lessons from recent retracted articles.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, two influential articles that reported the association of (hydroxy)chloroquine or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality were retracted due to significant methodological issues. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the same clinical issues through an improved research method and to find out the differences from the retracted papers. We systematically reviewed pre-existing literature, and compared the results with those of the retracted papers to gain a novel insight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted common risk factors identified in two retracted papers, and conducted relevant publication search until June 26, 2020 in PubMed. Then, we analyzed the risk factors for COVID-19 mortality and compared them to those of the retracted papers. RESULTS: Our systematic review demonstrated that most demographic and clinical risk factors for COVID-19 mortality were similar to those of the retracted papers. However, while the retracted paper indicated that both (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy and combination therapy with macrolide were associated with higher risk of mortality, our study showed that only combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and macrolide was associated with higher risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.33; 95% confidence interval 1.63-3.34). In addition, our study demonstrated that use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with reduced risk of mortality (0.77; 0.65-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: When analyzing the same clinical issues with the two retracted papers through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and relevant cohort studies, we found out that (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy was not associated with higher risk of mortality, and that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs was associated with reduced risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined with selective transforaminal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, efficacy, and indications of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) combined with selective transforaminal endoscopic decompression (TED) in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture (TBLF). METHODS: From August 2015 to October 2018, a total of 41 patients with single-segment TLBF (28 men and 13 women) were enrolled in this study. X-ray and computed tomography were obtained before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1 year after surgery to evaluate spinal recovery. In addition, we used the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and the Frankel classification of neurological deficits to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 22.02 ± 8.28 months. The postoperative Cobb angle, vertebral body compression ratio, vertebral wedge angle, mid-sagittal canal diameter compression ratio, and Frankel grade were significantly improved. There were also significant improvements in the VAS (7.61 ± 1.41 vs. 1.17 ± 0.80, P < 0.001), ODI (89.82 ± 7.44 vs. 15.71 ± 13.50, P < 0.001), and JOA (6.90 ± 2.91 vs. 24.90 ± 3.03, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PPSF combined with selective TED in the treatment of TLBF had excellent efficacy, high safety, less secondary injury than other treatments, and a wide range of indications and that it could accurately distinguish patients who did not need spinal canal decompression after posterior fixation. PPSF combined with selective TED is therefore a good choice for the treatment of TLBF.