A systematic review of ENT retractions

Abstract

PURPOSE: Retraction is the removal of published material due to flaws in research that cannot be corrected. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of all retracted literature in Ear Nose and Throat to understand the characteristics of retraction and the citations of retracted literature. METHODS: The Retraction Watch, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched to yield relevant retractions. Two independent authors performed abstract and full-text screening. Non-relevant texts, articles in non-English languages, and articles that were neither published (protocols) or retracted (expression of concern) were excluded. RESULTS: We found 225 retractions in Ear Nose and Throat literature from 1992 to 2023. The number of retractions increased with time, and the average time-to-retraction was 1 year (range 0-29). Most articles were retracted due to misconduct (72%). In total, 191/225 of retractions were signposted with a retraction notice; 90.6% of notices were linked to the original manuscript; 96.9% specified the reason for retraction and 100% were freely accessible. Publications were cited more after retraction (median 2, range 0-215 vs median 0, range 0-78, Z -1.78, p = 0.075), however this was not significant, and appeared to improve with a shorter retraction time (RS 0.67, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Retractions, although rare, are increasing across all scientific disciplines. Our data suggests that retractions are both efficiently and transparently publicised in the Ear Nose and Throat Literature. Investigators should be veracious when conducting their own research and regularly appraise manuscripts to ensure that misinformation is not perpetuated, remaining aware that retracted articles continue to be cited.

Ähnliche Arbeiten