Characteristics of Retracted Research Articles About COVID-19 vs Other Topics

Analysis of the Types of Retracted COVID-19 Articles Published in PubMed-Listed Journals

OBJECTIVES

Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed.

RESULTS

This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions.

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.

Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of research papers were published, and some of them were retracted. The present study aims to reveal the characteristics of retracted papers before and during the pandemic.

Methods

The study investigated 24,542,394 publications from 1999 to 2022 and analyzed the profiles of retracted papers from the perspectives of year, disease category, country, and journal.

Results

Retraction rates were generally increasing at least until 2019, and were the highest for "Neoplasms." The number of publications for "Infections" and "Respiratory Tract Diseases" dramatically rose during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the retraction rates in the two categories or of COVID-19-related papers were not especially high compared to other diseases. The association with retraction was strongest for China in most disease categories, whereas for COVID-19 papers, other countries showed higher retraction rates than China. In recent years, retracted papers have become less likely to be published in high-impact journals.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to affect the retractions of research papers much. We should keep monitoring retractions and analyze the effects of pandemics for better science.

Translation in action: Influence, collaboration, and evolution of COVID-19 research with Clinical and Translational Science Awards consortium support

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium aims to accelerate translational processes that move discoveries from bench to bedside. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented unmatched challenges and applications for CTSA hubs nationwide. Our study used bibliometrics to assess features of COVID-19 publications supported by the national CTSA program to characterize the consortium's response to the pandemic. Our goal was to understand relative scientific influence, collaboration across hubs, and trends in research emphasis over time. We identified publications from NIH's curated iSearch COVID-19 Publication Portfolio from February 2020 to February 2023; 3234 peer-reviewed articles relevant to COVID-19 cited a CTSA grant. All 66 CTSA hubs were represented, with large-size and longstanding hubs contributing more publications. Most publications cited UL1 grants, 457 cited KL2/TL1 training grants, and 164 cited multiple hub grants. Compared to a random sample of non-CTSA-supported COVID-19 publications, the CTSA portfolio exhibited greater clinical relevance, more human research, and higher altmetric and citation influence. Results were similar for multi-hub publications involving networked initiatives like multi-site clinical trials or the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative. Shifts from molecular/cellular-oriented research toward human-oriented research over time were evident, demonstrating translation in action. Results illuminate how the CTSA consortium confronted the pandemic through high-quality projects oriented toward human research, working across hubs on high-value collaborations, advancing along the translational spectrum over time. Findings validate CTSA hubs as critical support structures during health emergencies.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors.

METHODS

We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

Retracted publications in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology literature: an analysis using the retraction watch database

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the rate and characteristics of retracted articles in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology.

METHODS

Using the Retraction Watch Database, we conducted a cross-sectional study for retracted publications categorized as 'Infectious Disease' or 'Microbiology' until June 30 2022. We included publications for which citation information was available through the Web of Science database. Study characteristics, retraction trends and number of citations before and after the retraction year were analysed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1004 retracted publications were included, retracted between August 1968 and June 2022. The number of retractions climbed through the years, peaking in 2020-2021. A total of 614 retractions originated from USA, China, and India, of total 183 736 PubMed publications from these countries. Overall, 378 (38%) were retracted because of errors; 182 (18%) because of plagiarism; and 142 (14%) because of falsification/fabrication. Specific reasons included 'concerns/issues about data' (158, 16%); 'duplication of image' (127, 13%); and 'unreliable results' (116, 12%). Of the 347 retractions during 2020 to June 2022, 91 (26%) were COVID-19 related. Fifty of 895 (5.6%) first authors had two retracted papers, and 14 (1.6%) had ≥2 retractions. Of 824 publications cited at least once, 466 (57%) were cited more often after retraction.

DISCUSSION

Retractions of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology publications are increasing. Concerning reasons such as plagiarism, falsification/fabrication and errors are not uncommon. Nonetheless, these publications continue to be commonly cited after being retracted.

Retailoring training programmes in anaesthesia and intensive care after the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we want to collect all the adaptations that anaesthesiology training has faced because of the health crisis and social distancing measures resulting from coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). We reviewed new teaching tools launched during the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide and particularly those implemented by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EACTAIC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Globally, COVID-19 has interrupted health services and all aspects of training programmes. These unprecedented changes have led to teaching and trainee support innovation tools, focusing on online learning and simulation programmes. Airway management, critical care and regional anaesthesia, have been enhanced during the pandemic, while there were major obstacles in paediatrics, obstetrics and pain medicine.

SUMMARY

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered profoundly the functioning of health systems worldwide. Anaesthesiologists and trainees have fought on the front lines of the battle against COVID-19. As a result, training in anaesthesiology during the last 2 years has focused on managing patients in intensive care. New training programmes have been designed to continue teaching residents of this speciality, focusing on e-learning and advanced simulation. It is necessary to present a review describing the impact that this turbulent period has had on the different subsections of anaesthesiology and to review the innovative measures that have been implemented to address these possible deficits in education and training.

Paper 4: Search methods and approaches for living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To describe the key features of a continual evidence surveillance process that can be implemented for living guidelines and to outline the considerations and trade-offs in adopting different approaches.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the US GRADE Network (USGN) shared their practical experiences of and approaches to establishing surveillance systems for living guidelines. We identified several common components of evidence surveillance and listed the key features and considerations for each component drawn from case studies, highlighting differences with standard guidelines.

RESULTS

We developed guidance that covers the initial information needed to support decisions around suitability for living mode and the practical considerations in setting up continual search surveillance systems (search frequency, sources to search, use of automation, reporting the search, ongoing resources, and evaluation). The case studies draw on our experiences with developing guidelines for COVID-19, as well as for other conditions such as stroke and diabetes, and cover a range of practical approaches, including the use of automation.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights different approaches to continual evidence surveillance that can be implemented in living guidelines.

Responsible conduct of research: Preparedness for times of crisis

A live, virtual conference, "Driving Responsible Conduct of Research during a Pandemic," was held in April 2021, 13 months after the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the conduct of clinical research across the USA. New York was an early epicenter of the US pandemic, highlighting preexisting problems in clinical research and allowing us to assess lessons learned and to identify best practices for the future. Risks and opportunities were categorized broadly into three areas, protecting the welfare and safety of human subjects, ensuring trust in science and medicine, and implementing efficient, ethical, and compliant clinical research. Analysis of conference proceedings, and recent publications, shows a need for preparedness that is more effective, robust partnerships, and organizational systems and standards to strengthen the ethical and responsible conduct of research.