SynthesisPharmacoEconomics - open2026
Retractions of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRetractions of scientific articles have increased over time, across different health fields, disease indications, and study designs. However, it is currently unknown whether, and to what extent, retractions have impacted the literature of health economic evaluations. This research aimed to identify retracted health economic evaluations, describe the characteristics of such studies, and analyse reasons for retraction.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of health economic evaluations published in peer-reviewed journals and subsequently retracted, identified using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch database from inception to May 2025. Retraction notices were examined and publication details, including reasons for retraction, were extracted.
resultsWe identified 17 retracted economic evaluations published from 2006 to 2024. Studies evaluated a range of interventions in a broad array of disease indications. Retracted economic evaluations were published in 17 unique journals, 11 of which were top-tier outlets. Errors were the most common reason for retraction (11/17 studies, 64%), including errors in inputs, analysis, and/or model structure. Evidence of misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, and peer-review manipulation) was found in 4/17 studies (24%). Retractions were rapid, with 12/17 studies (71%) retracted within the same year. Mean citation count was 4.8; the highest was 33. Despite retraction, studies were included in subsequent evidence reviews (6/17 studies, 35%) and one was used to inform clinical practice recommendations (1/17 studies, 6%).
conclusionEvidence for retractions of health economic evaluations was found, spanning a variety of disease indications, interventions, and journal sources, due to errors or scientific misconduct. In some cases, papers produced subsequent citations in the literature despite retraction.
trial registrationOSF https://osf.io/8c6jb/?view_only=0ed118b9830e45058e56fc333b93a62f .
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.