Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw
Posted on 2021-10-09 - 03:21
Abstract Purpose of this letter was to explore the trends regarding methodological flaws of systematic review and meta-analyses (SRMAs) based on retraction notes in the past decades, and the categories of reasons for the retractions. Content analysis with descriptive statistics, Cochran Q test, and multinomial logistic regression were used. Based on 187 records of retracted SRMAs, retraction announcements can be categorized into academic ethical violation, methodological flaw, and writing or reporting problem. The numbers of academic ethical violation were significantly higher than those with methodological flaw (z = 3.51; p < 0.01) or writing problem (z = 8.58; p < 0.001). The numbers of methodological flaw were also higher than that with writing problem (z = 6.47; p < 0.001). Moreover, an increased proportion of methodological flaw was observed since 2006, and the retraction year was significantly associated with increased proportion of methodological flaw when academic ethical violation as the reference group.
CITE THIS COLLECTION
Chen, Chia-Yun; Kang, Yi-No; Kuo, Ken N.; Glasziou, Paul; Chen, Kee-Hsin (2021). Increasing retractions of meta-analyses publications for methodological flaw. figshare. Collection. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5654595.v1
Select your citation style and then place your mouse over the citation text to select it.
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Ken N. Kuo
observed since 2006multinomial logistic regressioncochran q testacademic ethical violationsystematic reviewsignificantly highersignificantly associatedretraction yearretraction notesretraction announcementsreporting problemreference grouppast decadesmethodological flawincreased proportiondescriptive statisticscontent analysisalso higher187 records001 ).