Abstract
Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the scientific record and alerts readers when a study contains unreliable or flawed data. Such data may arise from error or research misconduct. Studies examining the landscape of retracted publications provide insight into the extent of unreliable data and its effect on a medical discipline. We aimed to explore the extent and characteristics of retracted publications in pain research. We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Retraction Watch databases to December 31, 2022. We included retracted articles that (1) investigated mechanisms of painful conditions, (2) tested treatments that aimed to reduce pain, or (3) measured pain as an outcome. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the included data. We included 389 pain articles published between 1993 and 2022 and retracted between 1996 and 2022. There was a significant upward trend in the number of retracted pain articles over time. Sixty-six percent of articles were retracted for reasons relating to misconduct. The median (interquartile range) time from article publication to retraction was 2 years (0.7-4.3). The time to retraction differed by reason for retraction, with data problems, comprising data falsification, duplication, and plagiarism, resulting in the longest interval (3 [1.2-5.2] years). Further investigations of retracted pain articles, including exploration of their fate postretraction, are necessary to determine the impact of unreliable data on pain research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2397-2404 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Pain |
| Volume | 164 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 9 Jun 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 30 Nov 2023 |
Bibliographical note
M. C. Ferguson has received funding from ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) and Hospital for Special Surgery (NY) for methodological work on systematic reviews.Funding
Authors from leading universities produce fewer retracted articles, particularly those arising from misconduct. We found that almost three-quarters of authors of retracted pain articles were affiliated with clinical institutions, primarily hospitals, rather than academic institutions. Hospital affiliations are especially common for retractions from China. We also found many retracted articles did not report a funding source and those that did were mostly funded by national and state grants. More than half the included articles from China with funding information were funded by government grants. It is unclear whether the funding source of a study drives retraction or is simply an artefact of the most common sources of research funding.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| ACTTION | |
| Neuroscience Research Australia |
Keywords
- Misconduct
- Pain
- Retraction
- Withdrawal
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Clinical Neurology
- Neurology
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine