PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Shi, Qianling AU - Wang, Zijun AU - Zhou, Qi AU - Hou, Ruizhen AU - Gao, Xia AU - He, Shaoe AU - Zhao, Siya AU - Ma, Yanfang AU - Zhang, Xianzhuo AU - Guan, Quanlin AU - Chen, Yaolong AU - , TI - An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine AID - 10.1101/2020.10.10.20210666 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.10.10.20210666 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.10.20210666.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.10.20210666.full AB - Background Many previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in the field of medicine.Methods We searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We describe the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction.Results We identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3, and in journal ranked in the third quarter. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly; seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error.Conclusions The situation with retracted SRs is critical globally, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, while at the same time authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No ethical approval or exemption for the research was needed.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data referred to in the manuscript was extracted from the included studies.