ArticleArthritis care & research2026
Retractions in Rheumatology: Trends, Causes, and Implications for Research Integrity.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to describe the trends and main reasons for study retraction in rheumatology literature.
methodsWe reviewed the Retraction Watch database to identify retracted articles in rheumatology. We recorded the main study characteristics, authors' countries, reasons for retraction, time from publication to retraction, and trends over time. Reasons for retraction were classified as scientific misconduct, data/figure errors, or other reasons. Main article features and cause of retractions in rheumatology were compared with a sample of articles from other medical specialties.
resultsA total of 381 (79.5% original articles) rheumatology articles were retracted between 1989 and 2024. Most originated from Asia (68.5%), particularly China (50.7%). Scientific misconduct accounted for 75.3% of retractions, followed by data errors (14.9%) and other reasons (7.6%). Common misconduct types included data fabrication, fake peer review, duplication, and authorship issues. The median time from publication to retraction was 18 months (interquartile range 9-46), with one-third of articles requiring more than 36 months to be retracted. Time to retraction did not improve over time. The number of retractions steadily increased over time from 18 in 2000-2009, 117 in 2010-2019, and 207 in 2020-2023 (P < 0.001). Compared with other medical specialties, rheumatology exhibited similar retraction patterns, differing mainly in geographic distribution.
conclusionRetractions in rheumatology have risen substantially, largely due to misconduct. This trend may reflect an increase in questionable research practices or improved detection. Strengthening early-career education, institutional oversight, and ethical research culture is essential to enhance transparency and integrity in the field.
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.