Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 1:11:1210951.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1210951. eCollection 2023.

Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications

Sabrina Minetto  1 , Mara Zanirato  1 , Sofia Makieva  2 , Daria Marzanati  3 , Stefania Esposito  1 , Valerio Pisaturo  4 , Mauro Costa  4 , Massimo Candiani  1   5 , Enrico Papaleo  1 , Alessandra Alteri  1   5
Affiliations

Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications

Sabrina Minetto et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background and purpose: Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified "article duplication," "plagiarism," and "fabricated results" as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included.

Results: The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45-0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16-0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with "plagiarism" being the most common reason for retraction, followed by "duplicate publication."

Discussion: The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769.

Keywords: MAR; article retraction; medically assisted reproduction; research integrity; research misconduct.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of our systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Growth in the number of retracted articles and specifically randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1993 to 2023.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines: Retraction guidelines. (2019). Available online at: https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/retraction-guidelines-... (accessed April 1, 2023).
    1. Nath SB, ARTcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust. (2006) 185:152–4. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Steen RG. Misinformation in the medical literature: what role do error and fraud play? J Med Ethics. (2011) 37:498–503. 10.1136/jme.2010.041830 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics. (2011) 37:567–570. 10.1136/jme.2010.040964 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2012) 109:17028–33. 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types