Article Text

Download PDFPDF

6ER-015 Retracted pharmacology articles: a cross-sectional study using the retraction watch database
  1. H Rodriguez-Ramallo1,
  2. N Báez-Gutiérrez2,
  3. B Aparicio Castellano3
  1. 1Hospital Universitario Virgen Del Rocio, Pharmacy, Seville, Spain
  2. 2Hospital Puerta Del Mar, Pharmacy, Cádiz, Spain
  3. 3Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia, Pharmacy, Córdoba, Spain


Background and Importance Retractions in scientific literature can profoundly impact healthcare professionals, potentially misleading hospital pharmacists and affecting patient safety.

Aim and Objectives This study aimed to provide a focused examination of article retractions in pharmacological research.

Material and Methods A cross-sectional observational study was carried out using data from the recently released (10/09/2023) ‘Retraction Watch Database’* which compiles data from retracted scientific articles since the early 70s. We included data from retracted articles categorised as ‘Medicine-Pharmacology’ involving European researchers. We excluded data from article reinstatements.

We studied variables such as: type of study, date of article publication, date of article retraction, and reasons for retraction.

Time to retraction was calculated as date of article retraction – date of article publication. As most articles had several reasons for retraction, they were presented in a heat mat of pairwise combinations.

Results A total of 516 articles were retracted within the study period. Retracted articles were original studies 61.2% (316), reviews 27.1% (140), Review and meta-analysis 3.9% (20) and others 7.8% (40).

Abstract 6ER-015 Table 1

The median time to retraction was 2135 (IQR: 3680) days.

Conclusion and Relevance This study revealed a significant number of retracted pharmacology articles, often with substantial time lags from publication to retraction for several significant reasons. Hospital pharmacists must be aware of this issue, as it influences clinical decision-making. Discernment in citing articles is imperative to minimise associated risks.

References and/or Acknowledgements 1. The Retraction Watch Database [Internet]. New York: The Center for Scientific Integrity. 2018. ISSN: 2692-465X. [Cited (20/09/2023)]. Available from:

Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.