DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.18020 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 18020: An Analysis of Retraction Studies in the Cardiology in Last 2 Decades

Akash Sharma, Vidusha Karavadi, Harshini Suresh, Priyali Singh, Parteek Walia, Sowntappan Balasubramanian, U Venkatesh
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Background: False information might harm patients and increase medical care costs. For accurate and rapid scientific advancement and clinical care, the integrity of published biomedical literature is essential. Hence, we analyzed the retracted studies in cardiology.

Methodology: We adhere to the STROBE checklist. This cross-sectional study utilized PubMed and Embase databases to identify retracted publications from 2002-2022. The articles are retrieved for the detailed analysis of various characteristics, including year of publication, article type, causes of retraction, impact factor, number of citations, and author country. The statistical analysis was done by using R statistical software. Fischer t-test and 2-sample t-test were used to compare the two groups. Mann-Kendall Trend Test was used to know the trend of various variables. P-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The search yielded 979 articles. Randomized controlled studies, experimental studies, and case-control studies are major retracted study designs. Authors from China have the highest number of retracted studies (36.1%), followed by the USA (22.4%) and Japan (4%). The most common cause of retraction is mistakes and honest errors (24.51%); and duplicate data (17.78%). From 2002 to 2022, there has been an insignificant increase in the number of retracted studies with a significant decrease in the impact factor of journals, number of citations, and time to retraction. In the first decade(FD, 2003-2012) and second decade (SD, 2013-2023), males (68.2% in the FD and 66.9% in SD) had higher retraction. In the FD, USA's first authors had the highest retractions (32.5%), while in the SD, it was for Chinese authors (46%). In the SD, retracted publications had fewer citations than in the FD (mean difference (MD) -96.37, 95% CI -142.12 to -50.62, p-value <0.001). Also, the SD publications have less time for retractions (MD -9.12, 95%CI -15.52 to -2.71, p-value<0.005).

Conclusion: The trend of retracting publications in cardiovascular diseases is increasing. The retracted studies are still cited, but there is a decreasing trend.

More from our Archive