CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Academic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic integrity and plagiarism

A Case Study of a Retracted Systematic Review on Interactive Health Communication Applications: Impact on Media, Scientists, and Patients

Open access
Rada, Roy·2005·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e18PMC PMC1550646
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In October 2004, a flawed systematic review entitled "Interactive Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic Disease" was published in the Cochrane Library, accompanied by several press releases in which authors warned the public of the negative health consequences of interactive health communication applications, including the Internet. Within days of the review's publication, scientists identified major coding errors and other methodological problems that invalidated the principal conclusions of the study and led to a retraction. While the original study results and their negative conclusions were widely publicized in the media, the retraction seemed to go unnoticed. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to document an unprecedented case of misinformation from a Cochrane review and its impact on media, scientists, and patients. As well, it aims to identify the generic factors leading to the incident and suggest remedies. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of the events leading to the retraction of the publication and of the reactions from media, scientists, and patients. This includes a review and content analysis of academic and mass media articles responding to the publication and retraction. Mass media articles were retrieved in May 2005 from LexisNexis Academic and Google and were classified and tallied. The extended case method is employed, and the analysis is also applied to comparable publishing events. RESULTS: A search on LexisNexis Academic database with the query "Elizabeth Murray AND health" for the period of June 2004 to May 2005 revealed a total of 15 press reports, of which only 1 addressed the retraction. Google was searched for references to the review, and the first 200 retrieved hits were analyzed. Of these, 170 pages were not related to the review. Of the remaining 30 pages, 23 (77%) were reports about the original publication that did not mention the retraction, 1 (3%) was a bibliography not mentioning the retraction, and 6 (20%) addressed the retraction, of which only 1 was a non-Cochrane-related source. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzed retrievals showed that the mass media gave more coverage to the Cochrane review than to the retraction or to a related systematic review with a similar scope but a different conclusion. Questionable results were prematurely disseminated, oversimplified, and sensationalized, while the retraction was hardly noticed by the public. Open commentary by scientists and patients helped to rapidly identify the errors but did not prevent or correct the dissemination of misinformation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e18

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Retractions like the 2004 systematic review highlight the increasing value of using AI tools as assistants in the detection of statistical and reporting inconsistencies.

    “It is retractions like this one that highlight the increasing value of using AI tools as assistants in the detection of statistical and reporting inconsistencies.”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Abstract (Background) describes the 2004 systematic review’s retraction after scientists identified coding errors and methodological problems. The Discussion (First-Order Problem) calls for better quality control, but the paper does not discuss AI tools or their value in detecting statistical and reporting inconsistencies; that is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A 2004 systematic review declared poorer clinical outcomes of chronically ill patients using interactive health communication applications, but it was later discovered that the study contained critical errors in data analysis that invalidated the findings.

    “A 2004 systematic review declared poorer clinical outcomes of chronically ill patients using interactive health communication applications. It was later discovered that the study contained critical errors in data analysis that invalidated the findings.30”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

4 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]Murray E Interactive health communication applications: the story of a Cochrane review Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Newsletter 2004 11 6 7
  2. [9]Eysenbach G Cannot make sense of this review 2005 May 25 http://www.update-software.com/ccng/ccng.exe?SourceID=CD004274#Content1644
  3. [11]Greenberg D Updated Press Release to October 2004 Cochrane Review 2004 12 6 American Association for the Advancement of Science
  4. [30]Lasica J Mitchell A Internet journalism and the Starr investigation Thinking Clearly 2003 New York Columbia University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rada, R.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
Corresponding author
Rada, Roy
ORCID
Rada, Roy
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2005-06-30
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e18
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/jmir.7.2.e18
PMC
PMC1550646
OpenAlex
W2056072620
Cited by
24
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
health misinformation, media coverage of research, press releases, coding errors, methodological errors, chronic disease
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Communications Media, Health Promotion, Humans, Online Systems, Patients, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Science, User-Computer Interface, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Information Dissemination

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