Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Surveying Retracted Studies and Notices Within the Field of Radiation Oncology.|
|Authors:||Wasiak, Jason;Hamilton, Daniel George;Foroudi, Farshad;Faggion, Clovis M|
|Affiliation:||Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia|
Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Periodontology and Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Münster OR Muenster, Munster, Germany
|Citation:||International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 2018; 102(3): 660-665|
|Abstract:||The purpose of this study was to characterize retracted studies within the field of radiation oncology. Computerized searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2017 looking for retracted studies using the terms "retraction note," "retracted note," "withdrawn" and "radiotherapy," and "radiation oncology." Additional studies were identified by hand-searching 10 discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers and then extracted author demographics, journal characteristics, and retraction-specific variables. Of the 58 studies identified, the most common reasons for retraction were misconduct (43%), methodological error (21%), authorship issues (5%), unknown causes (5%), and journal (administrative) errors (3%). A total of 13 systematic reviews or protocols (22%) were withdrawn from the Cochrane Library for being out-of-date or redundant. All but one retracted study and retraction notice were available in portable document format. Of the 57 retrieved papers, 79% were identified as retracted via in-text notations or watermarks. Overall median time to retraction was 44 months (interquartile range, 11-98 months). However, 42 studies (72%) were still cited after retraction notices were published. A retracted study within the field of radiation oncology remains a relatively uncommon event. Although promising, our data suggest that the majority of these retracted articles continue to be cited as valid research. As such, there is still a need for clinicians to remain vigilant with their academic rigor and good clinical research practices. There is an urgent need for publication houses to foster universal publishing standards along with discipline-specific retraction guidelines.|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.