Scholarlink

Objectives <p>Retractions of scientific articles have increased over time, across different health fields, disease indications, and study designs. However, it is currently unknown whether, and to what extent, retractions have impacted the literature of health economic evaluations. This research aimed to identify retracted health economic evaluations, describe the characteristics of such studies, and analyse reasons for retraction.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a systematic review of health economic evaluations published in peer-reviewed journals and subsequently retracted, identified using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch database from inception to May 2025. Retraction notices were examined and publication details, including reasons for retraction, were extracted.</p> Results <p>We identified 17 retracted economic evaluations published from 2006 to 2024. Studies evaluated a range of interventions in a broad array of disease indications. Retracted economic evaluations were published in 17 unique journals, 11 of which were top-tier outlets. Errors were the most common reason for retraction (11/17 studies, 64%), including errors in inputs, analysis, and/or model structure. Evidence of misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, and peer-review manipulation) was found in 4/17 studies (24%). Retractions were rapid, with 12/17 studies (71%) retracted within the same year. Mean citation count was 4.8; the highest was 33. Four already-retracted economic evaluations were included in subsequent evidence reviews (4/17 studies, 24%) and one was used to inform clinical practice recommendations (1/17 studies, 6%).</p> Conclusion <p>Evidence for retractions of health economic evaluations was found, spanning a variety of disease indications, interventions, and journal sources, due to errors or scientific misconduct. In some cases, papers produced subsequent citations in the literature despite retraction.</p> Trial Registration <p>OSF <a href="https://osf.io/8c6jb/?view_only=0ed118b9830e45058e56fc333b93a62f">https://osf.io/8c6jb/?view_only=0ed118b9830e45058e56fc333b93a62f</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Retractions of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月26日

查看全文
  • Eric Julian Manalastas,
  • Aditi Hombali,
  • Juliette C. Thompson,
  • David Alexander Scott

摘要

Objectives

Retractions of scientific articles have increased over time, across different health fields, disease indications, and study designs. However, it is currently unknown whether, and to what extent, retractions have impacted the literature of health economic evaluations. This research aimed to identify retracted health economic evaluations, describe the characteristics of such studies, and analyse reasons for retraction.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of health economic evaluations published in peer-reviewed journals and subsequently retracted, identified using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch database from inception to May 2025. Retraction notices were examined and publication details, including reasons for retraction, were extracted.

Results

We identified 17 retracted economic evaluations published from 2006 to 2024. Studies evaluated a range of interventions in a broad array of disease indications. Retracted economic evaluations were published in 17 unique journals, 11 of which were top-tier outlets. Errors were the most common reason for retraction (11/17 studies, 64%), including errors in inputs, analysis, and/or model structure. Evidence of misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, and peer-review manipulation) was found in 4/17 studies (24%). Retractions were rapid, with 12/17 studies (71%) retracted within the same year. Mean citation count was 4.8; the highest was 33. Four already-retracted economic evaluations were included in subsequent evidence reviews (4/17 studies, 24%) and one was used to inform clinical practice recommendations (1/17 studies, 6%).

Conclusion

Evidence for retractions of health economic evaluations was found, spanning a variety of disease indications, interventions, and journal sources, due to errors or scientific misconduct. In some cases, papers produced subsequent citations in the literature despite retraction.

Trial Registration

OSF https://osf.io/8c6jb/?view_only=0ed118b9830e45058e56fc333b93a62f.