ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2024
The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Effects of retractions in primary health care.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn primary health care, the dissemination of retracted publications through literature reviews, guidelines, and recommendations can have a significant and lasting impact. Despite this potential threat, the retraction consequences and patterns in this domain have not been extensively explored. Therefore, this study investigates the characteristics and ripple effects of retracted papers in primary health care literature.
methodsRetracted publications indexed in PubMed from 1984 to 2022 in primary health care journals underwent bibliometric analysis. The dataset included detailed publication information, from which we derived annual retraction rates and examined trends by journal, authorship, and geographic origin. We further evaluated the extent of influence exerted by retracted papers through postretraction citation analysis.
resultsIn 44 primary health care journals, 13 articles were retracted over the study period, representing a retraction rate of 0.01%-notably lower than the aggregate rate for all PubMed journals. Despite this, we observed a recent surge in retraction frequency, especially in the last decade. The median interval to retraction was 15 months, with scientific misconduct, specifically fabrication, and plagiarism, as the predominant reasons. After retraction, the articles continued to exert considerable influence, averaging 25 citations per article with a 78.1% postretraction citation prevalence.
conclusionRetractions resulting from scientific misconduct in primary health care are increasing, with a substantial portion of such work continuing to be cited. This trend underscores the urgent need to improve research ethics and develop mechanisms that help primary care physicians discern reliable information, thereby reducing the reliance on compromised literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.