What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to quantify how many Cochrane reviews include papers by authors with significant retraction histories and to assess if sensitivity analyses were performed.

June 23, 2026Research Integrity and Peer Review0 citationsOpen Access

Research integrity within systematic reviews: investigating the prevalence of studies by authors with multiple retraction histories in Cochrane reviews

TZTheint Moh Moh ZawThe University of Sydney JHJames HeathersLinnaeus University GMGideon Meyerowitz‐KatzUniversity of Wollongong

Key Points

This study aims to quantify how many Cochrane reviews include papers by authors with significant retraction histories and to assess if sensitivity analyses were performed.
Used the Retraction Watch database to identify researchers with 24 or more retractions.
Collected data on Cochrane reviews that cited or included studies by these authors.
Recorded reasons for exclusion of studies and assessed the nature of sensitivity analyses conducted.
Out of 9,323 Cochrane Reviews, 81 (0.9%) included or cited studies by authors with 24+ retractions.
57 (0.6%) referenced and 32 (0.3%) included these studies in meta-analyses.
Only 19% of reviews that included potentially fraudulent studies conducted sensitivity analyses.

Abstract

Abstract Background Research misconduct poses a significant threat to the integrity of evidence synthesis. Although Cochrane reviews are known for rigorous methodological standards, the potential inclusion of studies authored by researchers with substantial retractions records raises concerns about the reliability of their conclusions. Objectives This study aims to (a) quantify the extent to which Cochrane reviews include or cite papers authored by researchers with at least 24 retractions (as listed in the Retraction Watch Leaderboard),and (b) examine whether sensitivity analyses were performed and identify the stated reasons for excluding those studies from the reviews. Methods The Retraction Watch database was used to identify researchers with 24 or more retractions in the database. This was done with custom code in Stata, created to identify individuals with > 24 entries. Data on Cochrane’s systematic reviews that included or referenced the studies by authors with 24 or more retraction records was collected. For reviews where these studies were excluded, the stated reasons for exclusion were recorded. We also assessed the frequency and nature of sensitivity analyses conducted to account for potential bias from problematic studies. Results Of 9,323 Cochrane Reviews, 81(0.9%)included or cited at least one potentially fraudulent study. 57(0.6%) of these reviews referenced and 32(0.3%) included such studies in meta-analyses. In cases where such studies were excluded, the justification was typically unrelated to trustworthiness. Of the 32 reviews that include potentially fraudulent studies, only a minority of reviews (19%, 6 out of 32) conducted sensitivity analyses after paper exclusions, primarily due to retracted papers, with only one analysis conducted in response to potential fraudulent studies. Conclusion The inclusion or insufficient handling of studies by highly retracted researchers in Cochrane reviews without sensitivity analysis highlights the concerns regarding the integrity and reliability of evidence used to guide clinical practice. This study underscores the need for formal mechanisms to assess author trustworthiness, recommends transparency in handling these studies, and calls for sensitivity analyses to be mandatory.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper