Cargando…

What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joaquim, Silvania, Longhini, Jessica, Palese, Alvisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Mattioli 1885 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35545979
http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954
_version_ 1784802490463551488
author Joaquim, Silvania
Longhini, Jessica
Palese, Alvisa
author_facet Joaquim, Silvania
Longhini, Jessica
Palese, Alvisa
author_sort Joaquim, Silvania
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence. METHODS: A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a “retracted article” message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted. RESULTS: Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals. (www.actabiomedica.it)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9534203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Mattioli 1885
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95342032022-10-18 What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review Joaquim, Silvania Longhini, Jessica Palese, Alvisa Acta Biomed Review BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence. METHODS: A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a “retracted article” message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted. RESULTS: Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals. (www.actabiomedica.it) Mattioli 1885 2022 2022-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9534203/ /pubmed/35545979 http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954 Text en Copyright: © 2022 ACTA BIO MEDICA SOCIETY OF MEDICINE AND NATURAL SCIENCES OF PARMA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
spellingShingle Review
Joaquim, Silvania
Longhini, Jessica
Palese, Alvisa
What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title_full What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title_fullStr What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title_short What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
title_sort what can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? findings from a scoping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35545979
http://dx.doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954
work_keys_str_mv AT joaquimsilvania whatcanwelearnfromretractedstudiesinthenursingfieldinthelast20yearsfindingsfromascopingreview
AT longhinijessica whatcanwelearnfromretractedstudiesinthenursingfieldinthelast20yearsfindingsfromascopingreview
AT palesealvisa whatcanwelearnfromretractedstudiesinthenursingfieldinthelast20yearsfindingsfromascopingreview