我们可以从过去20年护理领域被撤回的研究中学到什么?范围审查的结果

Silvania Joaquim, Jessica Longhini, Alvisa Palese
{"title":"我们可以从过去20年护理领域被撤回的研究中学到什么?范围审查的结果","authors":"Silvania Joaquim, Jessica Longhini, Alvisa Palese","doi":"10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim of the work: </strong>Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a \"retracted article\" message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":93849,"journal":{"name":"Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis","volume":"23 1","pages":"e2022193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Silvania Joaquim, Jessica Longhini, Alvisa Palese\",\"doi\":\"10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim of the work: </strong>Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a \\\"retracted article\\\" message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"e2022193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534203/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作背景和目的:文献综述总结了撤回研究的数量,并制定了防止这一问题的指南。然而,在护理领域,可用的数据很少。从其他经验中学习也许能够提高对这个问题的认识,并防止可避免的错误。因此,本研究的目的是通过调查撤稿的原因来绘制护理领域撤稿的地图,从而得出防止撤稿的策略。方法:通过检索PubMed和护理与相关健康累积索引(CINAHL)检索2001年至2021年发表的文章进行范围审查。与护理领域相关的定量初级和二级研究,以英文撰写,带有“撤回文章”信息和/或提出撤回通知,已被纳入。已记录撤回的主要原因,以及撤回研究的主要特点。结果:在274篇研究中,我们检测到26篇撤回,其中8篇是文献综述,7篇是实验研究。编辑是要求撤稿最频繁的一方。撤回的研究来自11个国家,大多数发表在普通护理期刊上(n = 19)。科学不端行为是撤稿的主要原因(n = 18),其余撤稿是由于其他类型的错误。结论:大部分撤稿是由编辑发布的,且主要来自高科学产出国家。科学不端行为是撤稿的主要原因;从这些失败中,已经确定了教育策略,以防止问题并提高研究人员和保健专业人员的认识。(www.actabiomedica.it)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.

Background and aim of the work: Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.

Methods: A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a "retracted article" message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.

Results: Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.

Conclusions: Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信