Kataoka Yuki, Banno Masahiro, Tsujimoto Yasushi, Ariie Takashi, Taito Shunsuke, Suzuki Tomoharu, Oide Shiho, Furukawa Toshi A
Department of Internal Medicine, Kyoto Min-Iren Asukai Hospital, Tanaka Asukai-cho 89, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8226, Japan; Scientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan; Department of Healthcare Epidemiology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; Section of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Community Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Scientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan; Department of Psychiatry, Seichiryo Hospital, Tsurumai 4-16-27, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 466-0064, Japan; Department of Psychiatry, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsurumai-cho 65, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 466-8560, Japan.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.015. Epub 2022 Jun 30.
To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.
In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves.
We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results.
Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.
探讨当纳入的随机对照试验（RCT）被撤回时，系统评价（SR）和临床实践指南（CPG）是否以及何时进行修正。
在这项元流行病学研究中，我们纳入了从“撤稿观察数据库”中引用被撤回RCT的SR和CPG。我们调查了SR和CPG中被撤回RCT的被引用频率。我们还调查了此类SR和CPG是否以及何时进行自我修正。
我们确定了587篇引用被撤回RCT的文章（525篇SR和62篇CPG）。在这587篇文章中，252篇（43%）在撤稿后发表，335篇（57%）在撤稿前发表。在127篇在证据综合中不加谨慎地引用已被撤回RCT而发表的文章中，没有一篇在发表后进行自我修正。在撤稿前发表的335篇文章中，239篇在证据综合中纳入了后来被撤回的RCT。其中，只有5%的SR（9/196）和5%的CPG（2/43）修正或撤回了其结果。
许多SR和CPG不加谨慎地纳入了已被撤回或后来被撤回的RCT。其中大多数从未得到修正。包括出版商和研究人员在内的科学界应做出系统和一致的努力，以消除被撤回RCT的影响。
