A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine

Evaluation of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine on the web of science database

BACKGROUND

The retraction of articles stands as the most significant mechanism employed to uphold the integrity of science, particularly in flawed studies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the reasons for article retractions in the field of emergency medicine and elucidate the problems arising from such retractions. The goal is to identify parameters in retracted articles that compromise scientific knowledge and raise awareness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retracted articles within the emergency medicine category were analyzed and assessed using the Web of Science database. The study sought to address the following questions: 1. In which year or years were the most articles retracted? 2. In which journals were the retracted articles published? 3. What is the distribution of topics in retracted articles? 4. What are the reasons for the retraction of articles? 5. What is the time difference and citation count between the publication and retraction years of the articles?

RESULTS

The study delved into reasons for article retractions, types of retracted articles, and other relevant factors. A total of 61 retracted articles were examined and analyzed, revealing an increasing trend in the rate of article retractions over the years. The majority of retracted articles occurred in 2023, with the highest retraction rate identified in the "Emergency Medicine International" journal. On average, articles were retracted 356 days after publication. Reasons for retracted articles included concerns related to data, authorship issues, plagiarism, duplication, and biased or fraudulent peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an examination of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine, highlighting a noteworthy increase in retractions due to various reasons. Despite retractions, it was observed that the citation counts of retracted articles increased. The growing number of retracted articles and frequent citations pose potential dangers from a scientific perspective, as citing retracted articles damages scientific integrity. The study underscores the importance of understanding the reasons for retracted articles and preventing the spread of such incidents in emergency medicine literature. The results, analyzed within various variables, indicate the need for further research and solutions, guiding future research efforts and contributing to the literature.

A Systematic Review of Retracted Publications in Clinical Orthopaedic Research

BACKGROUND

Retracted publications are an often-overlooked issue affecting the scientific community, and recent data confirms the overall number of retracted publications is rising. While this has previously been looked at within orthopaedic surgery, a contemporary understanding of retractions is required due to the rapid expansion in publications. Our study aimed to assess the retracted publications within clinical orthopaedic research to evaluate for characteristics and trends.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on December 14, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were 4 databases that were queried to identify retracted publications in clinical orthopaedics that assessed operative and nonoperative orthopaedic interventions (excluding basic science). Articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers; those meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for various characteristics, including reasons for retraction based on Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines.

RESULTS

There were 233 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were retracted between January 1, 1990, and December 14, 2023. Clinical orthopaedics represented 1.18% of all retracted publications identified through PubMed over this period. There were 87 articles that were retracted in 2023, up from 17 in 2022 (a 412% increase). Retracted studies were published in journals with 2022 impact factors up to 9.3, with an average of 3.1 (SD [standard deviation] 1.9). A total of 39.5% of the retracted studies were published in orthopaedic journals, and 60.9% of the retracted articles were published in exclusively open-access journals. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 2.1 years (SD 2.2). Retracted articles have been cited up to 180 times (mean 8.6; SD 20). Reasons for retraction included misconduct (45.9%), plagiarism (11.6%), redundant publication (11.6%), unethical research (10.3%), error (9.4%), and others (10.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing. Clinical research is the basis for clinical practice guidelines, the gold standard for informing medical decision-making. Retractions may be one harbinger of lower-quality publications; researchers, institutions, and journals together play important roles in maintaining scientific integrity.

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct

BACKGROUND

As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles.

METHODS

We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch).

RESULTS

A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months.

DISCUSSION

The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%).

CONCLUSION

These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.

METHODS

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.

RESULTS

Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

BACKGROUND

Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices.

RESULTS

A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations

BACKGROUND

Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations.

METHODS

The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons.

RESULTS

A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30).

CONCLUSION

Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Journal editors and publishers’ legal obligations with respect to medical research misconduct

As the burden of misconduct in medical research is increasingly recognised, questions have been raised about how best to address this problem. Whilst there are existing mechanisms for the investigation and management of misconduct in medical literature, they are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Journal editors and publishers play an essential role in protecting the veracity of the medical literature. Whilst ethical guidance for journal editors and publishers is important, it is not as readily enforceable as legal obligations might be. This article questions the legal obligations that might exist for journal editors and publishing companies with respect to ensuring the veracity of the published literature. Ultimately, there is no enforceable legal obligation in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. In light of this, more robust mechanisms are needed to deliver greater confidence and transparency in the investigative process, the management of concerns or findings of misconduct and the need to cleanse the literature. We show that the law disincentivises journals and publishers from ensuring truth in their publications. There are harmful consequences for medical care and public confidence in the medical profession and health care system when the foundations of medical science are questionable.

Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study

Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008-2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018-2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just ∼61% in 2008-2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018-2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008-2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.

Do retraction practices work effectively? Evidence from citations of psychological retracted articles

Scientific retraction practices are intended to help purge the continued use of flawed research and assist in maintaining the integrity, credibility and quality of scientific literature. However, the practical effect of retraction is still vague and needs to be further explored. In this study, we analysed the citation counts and sentiments (positive/negative) of retracted articles in psychology journals from Web of Science to explore the effect of retraction. Causal inference strategies were used to measure the net effect of retractions on citation. Results show that the retraction practices induced the citation counts to reduce as expected. However, the proportion of negative citations also decreased because of retraction, indicating an unsatisfied effect. The retraction practice of high-impact factors and open access journals was more effective than other journals. The study integrated an understanding of the dissemination of erroneous publications and provided implications for liabilities involved in the whole retraction process.

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Background

Retractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded.

Results

Two-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted.

Conclusions

The rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x.

A Systematic Review of Retractions in the Field of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

No systematic studies on retractions in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia exist. The aim of this analysis was to identify characteristics and trends of retractions in this field over the past three decades.

DESIGN

A search of the Retraction Watch Database for retracted articles published between 1990 and 2020 in the field of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia was performed.

SETTING

A bibliometric study.

PARTICIPANTS

Five thousand three hundred forty-four retractions with the term "medicine" in the subject code were selected. Retractions of full-length English articles reporting findings in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia were included.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 63 articles published in 31 journals from January 1990 to August 2020 were retracted. The majority were original articles (n = 60, 95.2%) and retracted for scientific misconduct (n = 50, 79.4%). The percentage of retractions due to misconduct increased from 2010, with a spike in 2011 (n = 26/50, 52.0%), and reached a plateau in 2014. The three most common reasons for retraction were misconduct by the author (n = 31, 49.2%), duplication (n = 12, 19.0%), and errors within the manuscript (n = 11, 17.5%). The median time from publication to retraction was 4.3 years (IQR: 1.7-9.4) and decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001). The median impact factor (IF) of the journals that published retracted articles was 3.5 (IQR 2.0-4.5) and decreased significantly over the study period (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Scientific misconduct represents the most common reason for retraction in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. The median time to retraction and journal IF decreased significantly over time. While this is promising, future efforts should be made to screen for falsified data and standardize the processes after retraction to highlight problematic manuscripts.

The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry

Objective

Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued use and citation of retracted publications presents a problem for future research. This study investigated retractions in the dental literature to understand the characteristics of retracted publications, the reasons for their retractions, and the nature and context of their citations after retraction.

Methods

In September 2018, the authors identified retracted dentistry publications using the Retraction Watch database. Citations to those publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. Characteristics of retracted publications and their citations were collected, including study design, reasons for retraction, and nature of citation (positive, negative, or neutral). We used chi-square tests to determine if there were notable differences between retracted publications that were cited following retraction and those that were not, and if there were relationships between the nature of the citation, the study design of the original publication, and its reason for retraction.

Results

Of the 136 retracted publications, 84 were cited after retraction. When restricted to English language, 81 retracted publications received citations from 685 publications. Only 5.4% of the citations noted the retracted status of the original publication, while 25.3% of citations were neutral and 69.3% were positive. Animal studies were more likely to be uncited after retraction, while in vitro studies and randomized controlled trials were more likely to be cited. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were more likely to have been retracted due to scientific distortion than those that were cited positively or neutrally. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were also more likely to be observational studies than those cited positively or neutrally.

Conclusion

Retracted publications in dentistry are continually cited positively following their retraction, regardless of their study designs or reasons for retraction. This indicates that the continued citation of retracted publications in this field cannot be isolated to certain research methods or misconduct but is, instead, a more widespread issue.

A scoping review of retracted publications in anesthesiology

Context:

Fraudulent publication is a scourge of scientific research.

Objectives:

This scoping review was aimed at characterizing retracted publications for fraud or plagiarism in the field of anesthesia. Does the reputation of the journal (Quartile and Impact Factor, IF) protect the reader from the risk of having the manuscript he read withdrawn for fraud/plagiarism?

Methods/Design:

This scoping review was planned following the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. Data sources: PubMed and the Retraction Watch Database (http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?). Study selection: All types of publications retracted. Data extraction: Year, first author nationality, journal name, journal category, IF, Quartile, H index. Data analysis: The association with Quartile and IF was investigated.

Results:

No significant association between retraction of papers published in no-Quartile journals and retractions published in journals placed in the highest quartile.

Conclusions:

The quality of the surveillance in paper submission is not higher in journals of the first Quartile than in journals not placed in other Quartiles. (The protocol was prospectively registered in the Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TGKNE)

Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil

Abstract Over the years, cases of retractions due to unintentional errors or research misconduct have been the subject of discussion, being indispensable to avoid the propagation of misleading information. To understand this matter in the Brazilian scenario, this study characterizes the retractions of authorship or co-authorship of Brazilian researchers between 2002 and 2019, their related consequences and impacts on scientific activity. With a data collection performed at the Retraction Watch database, we analyzed quantitative aspects of the reasons for retractions, stratification by areas of knowledge, the time between publication and retraction, the association of journals and impact factor, authors’ recidivism, the institutional collaboration between Brazilian institutions and countries and funding sources. The results of the analysis of 162 retractions indicate the prevalence of plagiarism (12.2%), the incidence of retracted articles in the Bioscience area (28.1%), in journals with Impact Factors between 2 and 5 (38.0%), and with 2 to 4 authors (38.8%). The occurrences and recurrences of retractions due to misconduct have an impact not only the author’s professional activity but science. Thus, this article emphasizes the importance of prompt retraction, as well as of the need to improve mechanisms to prevent these articles from being published from the start.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.