Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Increasing awareness of scientific misconduct has prompted various fields of medicine, including orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and dentistry to characterize the reasons for article retraction. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the reasons for and the rate of article retraction in the field of anesthesia within the last 30 years. Methods Based on a reproducible search strategy, two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Retraction Watch website to identify retracted anesthesiology articles. Extracted data included: author names, year of publication, year of the retracted article, journal name, journal five-year impact factor, research type (clinical, basic science, or review), reason for article retraction, number of citations, and presence of a watermark indicating article retraction. Results Three hundred and fifty articles were included for data extraction. Reasons for article retraction could be grouped into six broad categories. The most common reason for retraction was fraud (data fabrication or manipulation), which accounted for nearly half (49.4%) of all retractions, followed by lack of appropriate ethical approval (28%). Other reasons for retraction included publication issues (e.g., duplicate publications), plagiarism, and studies with methodologic or other non-fraud data issues. Four authors were associated with most of the retracted articles (59%). The majority (69%) of publications utilized a watermark on the original article to indicate that the article was retracted. Journal Citation Reports journal impact factors ranged from 0.9 to 48.1 (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 3.6 [2.5-4.0]), and the most cited article was referenced 197 times (median [IQR], 13 [5-26]). Most retracted articles (66%) were cited at least once by other journal articles after having been withdrawn. Conclusions Most retracted articles in anesthesiology literature were retracted because of research misconduct. Limited information is available in the retraction notices, unless explicitly stated, so it is challenging to distinguish between an honest error and research misconduct. Therefore, a standardized reporting process with structured retraction notices is desired.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data.
“between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data, 8-12”
From Evaluating the Accuracy of scite, a Smart Citation Index (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
The table in “Identification of retracted articles” reports 49.4% for data manipulation or fraud and 4.2% for other data or methodology issues—about 54% combined. This supports the upper end of the range, but the paper studies anesthesiology retractions and does not establish the 22% lower end or the range for retractions generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 90
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 2008; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor. 7401143. · DOI · Paper page
- McHugh UM, Yentis SM. An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben. Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii. Anaesthesia 2019; 74: 17-21.
- Hwang K, Wu X. Retracted or withdrawn publications in journals relating to plastic surgery journals. J Craniofac Surg 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004735. · DOI
- Chauvin A, De Villelongue C, Pateron D, Yordanov Y. A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine. Eur J Emerg Med 2019; 26: 19-23.
- Nogueira TE, Gonc ¸alves AS, Leles CR, Batista AC, Costa LR. A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Res Notes 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y. · DOI
- Wang J, Ku JC, Alotaibi NM, Rutka JT. Retraction of neurosurgical publications: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2017; 103(809-14): e1.
- Yan J, MacDonald A, Baisi L, Evaniew N, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Retractions in orthopaedic research: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5: 263-8.
- Cyranoski D. Retraction record rocks community. Nature 2012; 489: 346-7.
- Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 521-37.
- Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 848-58.
- Tramer MR. The Boldt debacle. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 393-5.
- Kranke P, Apfel CC, Roewer N, Fujii Y. Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly nice! Anesthesia and analgesia 2000; 90: 1004-7.
- Miller DR. Retraction of articles written by Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii. Can J Anesth 2012; 59: 1081-8.
- Editors-in-Chief statement regarding published clinical trials conducted without IRB approval by Joachim Boldt. Minerva Anestesiol 2011; 77: 562-3.
- White PF, Rosow CE, Shafer SL; Editorial Board of Anesthesia & Analgesia. The Scott Reuben saga: one last retraction. Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 512-5.
- Bornemann-Cimenti H, Szilagyi IS, Sandner-Kiesling A. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22: 1063-72.
- Anonymous. Notice of retraction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.011. · DOI
- Neill US. Publish or perish, but at what cost? J Clin Invest 2008; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI36371. · DOI
- Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One 2010; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271. · DOI · Paper page
- Tijdink JK, Bouter LM, Veldkamp CL, van de Ven PM, Wicherts JM, Smulders YM. Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163251. · DOI
- Krimsky S. When conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct. Med Law 2007; 26: 447-63.
- Marcovitch H, Barbour V, Borrell C, et al. Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009. Croat Med J 2010; 51: 7-15.
- Botkin JR. Should failure to disclose significant financial conflicts of interest be considered research misconduct? JAMA 2018; 320: 2307-8.
- Sessler DI, Kurz A. Departmental and institutional strategies for reducing fraud in clinical research. Anesth Analg 2012; 115: 474- 6.
- Authors
- Nair, S., Yean, C., Yoo, J., Leff, J., Delphin, E., & Adams, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Montefiore Medical Center (US)
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nair, Singh
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
- Published
- 2019-10-15
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-63
- ISSN
- 0832-610X (ISSN-L)
- 1496-8975
- OpenAlex
- W2981024429
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 12.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- retraction, research misconduct, scientific fraud, data fabrication, data manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate publication, research ethics approval, journal impact factor, citation patterns
- MeSH terms
- Anesthesiology, Humans, Neurosurgery, Plagiarism, Scientific Misconduct, Journal Impact Factor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
