ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Publication Concerns and Artificial Intelligence.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- What might a satisfactory response by journals and publishers to publication integrity concerns look like?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.BMC medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePotentially untrustworthy medical research is often identified after publication. We evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of post-publication review of such studies in women's health.
designCohort study. SAMPLE: Potentially untrustworthy papers published in women's health journals.
methodsWe wrote to the editors and publishers about potentially untrustworthy papers in women's health and requested an investigation according to the procedure established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
main outcome measureStudy characteristics, investigation outcome classed as retraction, expression of concern (EoC), correction or no wrongdoing found, and time to decision. We also report the case completion rate per journal and publisher.
resultsBetween 7th November 2017 and 30th April 2024, we wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At present, 263 (30%) of 891 papers received an outcome, with 227 (86%) labelled as problematic [152 (58%) retracted; 75 (29%) EoC]. For articles with a decision, it took a median time of 38 months for editors and publishers to decide, with 13% of the flagged cases reaching a decision within 12 months.
conclusionsThe current PPR process is inefficient and ineffective in assessing and removing untrustworthy data from the medical 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.