PubMed · 4415381
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G B Forbes. 1974. Publication time.. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1974.02110280023002
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: Several journals have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to make assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) easier. One of these recommendations is that the trial's results be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs published in 5 general medical journals have discussed new results in light of all available evidence. DESIGN: Assessment of the discussion sections in all 26 reports of RCTs published during May 1997 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The inclusion or mention of a systematic review in the discussion section of each article. RESULTS: In only 2 articles were the RCT's results discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of earlier trials. In a further 4 articles, references were made to relevant systematic reviews, but no attempts were made to integrate the results of the new trials in updated versions of these reviews. One article was probably the first published trial to address the question studied. The remaining 19 articles included no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the reported trial's results in the context of previous trials. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that journals have adequately implemented the CONSORT recommendation that results of an RCT be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.
CONTEXT: This study examined the impact of retracted articles on biomedical communication. OBJECTIVE: To examine publications identified in the biomedical literature as having been retracted, to ascertain why and by whom the publications were retracted and to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work. DESIGN: A search of MEDLINE from 1966 through August 1997 for articles that had been retracted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of retractions and citations to articles after retraction. RESULTS: A total of 235 articles had been retracted. Error was acknowledged in relation to 91 articles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was given in 20. Of the 235 articles, 190 were retracted by some or all of the authors; 45 were retracted by a person or organization other than the author(s). The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n = 17) or implicitly (n = 263) as though it were valid research. CONCLUSION: Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid work in the biomedical literature after publication of the retraction; these citations signal potential problems for biomedical science.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.