Systematic reviews cited retracted articles, new study finds
\n \t
\n
<\/BR>
\n
\n \t
\n
<\/BR><\/p>\n
Systematic reviews, which involve pooling data from multiple studies and analyzing them together, are increasingly popular as a way to produce more authoritative conclusions than can be derived from the individual smaller papers. In recent weeks, systematic reviews have been used to justify policy around gender affirming care<\/a> as well as in the MAHA report.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n But, a new paper adds to a body of evidence that not all systematic reviews are created equal, at a time when some researchers are trying to think through alternatives to the current way of doing these analyses. The study, published in JAMA Network Open on Thursday<\/a>, found a small number of systematic reviews included retracted studies from paper mills, journals that produce low-quality research to help researchers game the academic job market.\u00a0<\/p>\n