ArticleArchives of microbiology2026
Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.
Article in Archives of microbiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integrity of tuberculosis research is critical for global public health, yet the phenomenon of article retractions in this field remains underexplored. This study examines patterns, reasons, and temporal trends of retracted tuberculosis-related research articles. A comprehensive analysis of retracted tuberculosis articles published between 1993 and 2023 was conducted using data from the Retraction Watch database and scholarly databases, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Journal characteristics, publisher distribution, retraction reasons, and keyword patterns were systematically analyzed. Concordance between official retraction notices and post-publication peer review discussions on PubPeer was assessed. The analysis revealed 150 retracted tuberculosis articles, with minimal retractions from 1993 to 2009 but substantial increases from 2010 onwards, peaking at 24 retractions in 2021. Retractions were distributed across all journal quartiles (Q1-Q4) and major publishers include Hindawi, Elsevier, Springer, and Taylor & Francis. The most frequent retraction reasons were unreliable results(n = 32), data concerns(n = 31), and journal investigations (n = 29). Most retraction notices cited 2-4 concurrent reasons from 60 unique categories, indicating complex integrity violations. Keyword analysis revealed predominance of molecular and genetic research, with "genetic," "cell," and "protein" as dominant terms. Animal models and drug development studies featured prominently. Comparison between Retraction Watch and PubPeer showed 80.3% concordance, though 15.2% of cases revealed discrepancies between official and community-identified concerns. Tuberculosis research retractions have increased substantially in recent years, affecting publications across quality tiers. The high-complexity nature of molecular tuberculosis research may contribute to vulnerability to data integrity issues. Post-publication peer review platforms provide valuable complementary oversight to traditional editorial processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371111What 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.