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
. 2024 Jan 12;13(1):24.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02439-3.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

Azita Shahraki-Mohammadi  1 , Leila Keikha  2 , Razieh Zahedi  3
Affiliations

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

Azita Shahraki-Mohammadi et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review.

Method: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software.

Result: Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores.

Discussion and conclusion: There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Keywords: AMSTAR-2; Methodology; Quality; Retraction; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Publication and retraction year of retracted non-Cochrane SRs
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The number of retraction reasons based on the year of retraction
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The evaluation of the quality of the methodology in the retracted non-Cochrane SRs with the AMSTAR-2 checklist
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Le JT, Qureshi R, Twose C, Rosman L, Han G, Fapohunda K, et al. Evaluation of systematic reviews of interventions for retina and vitreous conditions. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(12):1399–1405. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, Jaeschke R, Devereaux P, Prasad K, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312(2):171–179. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5559. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Annane D, Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(4):512–514. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555(7695):175–182. doi: 10.1038/nature25753. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paul M, Leibovici L. Systematic review or meta-analysis? Their place in the evidence hierarchy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):97–100. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12489. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources