Cargando…
Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw
Purpose of this letter was to explore the trends regarding methodological flaws of systematic review and meta-analyses (SRMAs) based on retraction notes in the past decades, and the categories of reasons for the retractions. Content analysis with descriptive statistics, Cochran Q test, and multinomi...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34625093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01822-2 |
_version_ | 1784580321059012608 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Chia-Yun Kang, Yi-No Kuo, Ken N. Glasziou, Paul Chen, Kee-Hsin |
author_facet | Chen, Chia-Yun Kang, Yi-No Kuo, Ken N. Glasziou, Paul Chen, Kee-Hsin |
author_sort | Chen, Chia-Yun |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose of this letter was to explore the trends regarding methodological flaws of systematic review and meta-analyses (SRMAs) based on retraction notes in the past decades, and the categories of reasons for the retractions. Content analysis with descriptive statistics, Cochran Q test, and multinomial logistic regression were used. Based on 187 records of retracted SRMAs, retraction announcements can be categorized into academic ethical violation, methodological flaw, and writing or reporting problem. The numbers of academic ethical violation were significantly higher than those with methodological flaw (z = 3.51; p < 0.01) or writing problem (z = 8.58; p < 0.001). The numbers of methodological flaw were also higher than that with writing problem (z = 6.47; p < 0.001). Moreover, an increased proportion of methodological flaw was observed since 2006, and the retraction year was significantly associated with increased proportion of methodological flaw when academic ethical violation as the reference group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01822-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8499503 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84995032021-10-08 Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw Chen, Chia-Yun Kang, Yi-No Kuo, Ken N. Glasziou, Paul Chen, Kee-Hsin Syst Rev Letter Purpose of this letter was to explore the trends regarding methodological flaws of systematic review and meta-analyses (SRMAs) based on retraction notes in the past decades, and the categories of reasons for the retractions. Content analysis with descriptive statistics, Cochran Q test, and multinomial logistic regression were used. Based on 187 records of retracted SRMAs, retraction announcements can be categorized into academic ethical violation, methodological flaw, and writing or reporting problem. The numbers of academic ethical violation were significantly higher than those with methodological flaw (z = 3.51; p < 0.01) or writing problem (z = 8.58; p < 0.001). The numbers of methodological flaw were also higher than that with writing problem (z = 6.47; p < 0.001). Moreover, an increased proportion of methodological flaw was observed since 2006, and the retraction year was significantly associated with increased proportion of methodological flaw when academic ethical violation as the reference group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01822-2. BioMed Central 2021-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8499503/ /pubmed/34625093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01822-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Letter Chen, Chia-Yun Kang, Yi-No Kuo, Ken N. Glasziou, Paul Chen, Kee-Hsin Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title | Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title_full | Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title_fullStr | Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title_full_unstemmed | Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title_short | Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
title_sort | increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw |
topic | Letter |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34625093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01822-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenchiayun increasingretractionsofmetaanalysespublicationsformethodologicalflaw AT kangyino increasingretractionsofmetaanalysespublicationsformethodologicalflaw AT kuokenn increasingretractionsofmetaanalysespublicationsformethodologicalflaw AT glaszioupaul increasingretractionsofmetaanalysespublicationsformethodologicalflaw AT chenkeehsin increasingretractionsofmetaanalysespublicationsformethodologicalflaw |