Lessons Learned from Publicizing and Retracting an Erroneous Hypothesis on the Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) Vaccination with Unethical Implications

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan.

METHODS

Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained.

RESULTS

Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

The Impact of Social Media on Vaccination: A Narrative Review

Vaccine hesitancy poses a significant global health challenge, fueled by misinformation and anti-vaccination campaigns on social media platforms (SMPs). This study examines the influence of social media on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 vaccination in Asia during the peri-pandemic period. Through a comprehensive analysis of available literature, we aim to elucidate the role of SMPs in shaping vaccination attitudes and behaviors. The findings highlight the detrimental impact of social media on vaccination efforts and provide insights into addressing vaccine hesitancy during this critical period. A narrative review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases from inception to May 26, 2022. Only English-language articles involving human participants from Asian countries were included in this review. Out of the 228 articles identified through the database search, 14 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in Asian countries was found to be high, ranging from 20% to 55% across countries. Notably, reliance on SMPs for vaccine-related information was associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. This trend coincided with the proliferation of misinformation and conspiracy theories that portrayed COVID-19 vaccines as harmful during the pandemic. Similar patterns were observed for other types of vaccines, including polio, measles mumps and rubella, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines. The use of SMPs was also found to be associated with increased fear among caregivers in Asian countries, as well as a 3-4 times higher likelihood of delayed immunization. SMPs negatively impact vaccine intent in Asia due to misinformation and anti-vaccination campaigns during the pandemic. However, they can be a powerful tool for healthcare providers and policymakers to promote informed decision-making. Efforts should focus on leveraging SMPs to disseminate reliable information and combat hesitancy, fostering a well-informed and vaccinated population in Asia.

Vaccine hesitancy decreases in rheumatic diseases, long-term concerns remain in myositis: a comparative analysis of the COVAD surveys

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) such as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs); however, hesitancy continues to persist among these patients. Therefore, we studied the prevalence, predictors and reasons for hesitancy in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs), using data from the two international COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) e-surveys.

METHODS

The first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P < 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P < 0.01). We noted with concern greater skepticism over vaccine science among patients with IIMs than AIRDs (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.2, P = 0.023) and HCs (OR: 4; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.1, P < 0.001), as well as more long-term safety concerns/fear (IIMs vs AIRDs - OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, P = 0.001; IIMs vs HCs - OR: 5.4 95% CI: 3, 9.6, P < 0.001). Caucasians [OR 4.2 (1.7-10.3)] were likely to be more hesitant, while those with better PROMIS physical health score were less hesitant [OR 0.9 (0.8-0.97)].

CONCLUSION

Vaccine hesitancy has decreased from 2021 to 2022, long-term safety concerns remain among patients with IIMs, particularly in Caucasians and those with poor physical function.

COVID-19 vaccination-related adverse events among autoimmune disease patients: results from the COVAD study

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe in the healthy population. However, gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs). COVID-19 vaccination-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination were assessed in the COVAD study, a patient self-reported cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

The survey was circulated in early 2021 by >110 collaborators (94 countries) to collect SAID details, COVID-19 vaccination details and 7-day vaccine AEs, irrespective of respondent vaccination status. Analysis was performed based on data distribution and variable type.

RESULTS

Ten thousand nine hundred respondents [median (interquartile range) age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analysed; 5867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. Seventy-nine percent had minor and only 3% had major vaccine AEs requiring urgent medical attention (but not hospital admission) overall. Headache [SAIDs = 26%, HCs = 24%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.1 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.3); P = 0.014], abdominal pain [SAIDs = 2.6%, HCs = 1.4%; OR = 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.3); P = 0.011], and dizziness [SAIDs = 6%, HCs = 4%; OR = 1.3 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.6); P = 0.011], were slightly more frequent in SAIDs. Overall, major AEs [SAIDs = 4%, HCs = 2%; OR = 1.9 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.2); P < 0.001] and, specifically, throat closure [SAIDs = 0.5%, HCs = 0.3%; OR = 5.7 (95% CI: 2.9, 11); P = 0.010] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%). Major AEs and hospitalizations (<2%) were comparable across vaccine types in SAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination against COVID-19 is safe in SAID patients. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major AEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small. There are small differences in minor AEs between vaccine types in SAID patients.

COVID‐19 Vaccination In Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) Study: Vaccine Safety In Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies

Introduction/Aims

In this study we investigated COVID‐19 vaccination–related adverse events (ADEs) 7 days postvaccination in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) and other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs).

Methods

Seven‐day vaccine ADEs were collected in an international patient self‐reported e‐survey. Descriptive statistics were obtained and multivariable regression was performed.

Results

Ten thousand nine hundred respondents were analyzed (1227 IIM cases, 4640 SAID cases, and 5033 healthy controls [HCs]; median age, 42 [interquartile range, 30‐455] years; 74% female; 45% Caucasian; 69% completely vaccinated). Major ADEs were reported by 76.3% of the IIM patients and 4.6% reported major ADEs. Patients with active IIMs reported more frequent major (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; interquartile range [IQR], 1.04‐7.3) and minor (OR, 1.5; IQR, 1.1‐2.2) ADEs than patients with inactive IIMs. Rashes were more frequent in IIMs (OR, 2.3; IQR, 1.2‐4.2) than HCs. ADEs were not impacted by steroid dose, although hydroxychloroquine and intravenous/subcutaneous immunoglobulins were associated with a higher risk of minor ADEs (OR, 1.9; IQR, 1.1‐3.3; and OR, 2.2; IQR, 1.1‐4.3, respectively). Overall, ADEs were less frequent in inclusion‐body myositis (IBM) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine recipients.

Discussion

Seven‐day postvaccination ADEs were comparable in patients with IIMs, SAIDs, and HCs, except for a higher risk of rash in IIMs. Patients with dermatomyositis with active disease may be at higher risk, and IBM patients may be at lower risk of specific ADEs. Overall, the benefit of preventing severe COVID‐19 through vaccination likely outweighs the risk of vaccine‐related ADEs. Our results may inform future guidelines regarding COVID‐19 vaccination in patients with SAIDs, specifically in those with IIMs. Studies to evaluate long‐term outcomes and disease flares are needed to shed more light on developing future COVID‐19 vaccination guidelines.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey.

METHODS

In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73-144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period.

CONCLUSION

The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With greater use of social media platforms for promotions of research articles, retracted articles tend to receive approximately the same attention. We systematically analyzed retracted articles from retractionwatch.com to look at the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) garnered over a period of time in order to highlight the role of social media and other platforms in advertising retracted articles and its effect on the spread of misinformation.

METHODS

Retractionwatch.com was searched for coronavirus disease 2019 related retracted papers on November 6th, 2021. Articles were excluded based on lack of digital object identifier (DOI), if they were preprint articles, absent AAS, and incomplete AAS of pre retraction, post retraction, or both scores.

RESULTS

A total of 196 articles were found on the Retraction Watch website of which 189 were retracted papers and 7 were expression of concern (EOC). We then identified 175 articles after excluding those that did not have a DOI and 30 preprint articles were also excluded giving 145 articles. Further exclusion of articles with absent AAS and incomplete AAS resulted in a total of 22 articles.

CONCLUSION

Retracted articles receive significant online attention. Twitter and Mendeley were the most popular medium for publicizing retracted articles, therefore more focus should be given by journals and their Twitter accounts to discredit all their retracted articles. Preprints should be reconsidered as a whole by journals due to the huge risk they carry in disseminating false information.

COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD) survey protocol

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a cause of unprecedented global morbidity and mortality. Whilst COVID-19 vaccination has emerged as the only tangible solution to reducing poor clinical outcomes, vaccine hesitancy continues to be an obstacle to achieving high levels of vaccine uptake. This represents particular risk to patients with autoimmune diseases, a group already at increased risk of hospitalization and poor clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection. Whilst there is a paucity of long-term safety and efficacy data of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases, the current evidence strongly suggests that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of adverse effects and disease flares. Herein, we report the protocol of the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, an ongoing international collaborative study involving 29 countries and over 110 investigators.

Harnessing the True Power of Altmetrics to Track Engagement

Altmetrics has recently been at the forefront of tracking medical literature propagation on social media in the modern era. With the rapidly evolving landscape of social media for academia, there's room to revise the approach. The authors discuss current limitations and suggest changes to make online attention trackers more robust and wholesome. Medical literature propagated on currently popular social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok are not accounted for by altmetrics. For altmetrics to become a more robust tool it is vital that it keeps up with the times and accounts for representation of data from these platforms as well. Greater inclusivity, dynamic weightage of different social media platforms based on location dependant availability and usage, and period re-evaluation based on prevailing trends may help metrics reflect the true attention garnered by published research. Besides, development of hybrid scores with separate components to reflect online attention and traditional citations may provide readers a more fair and balanced perception of the actual importance of an article. With the changes proposed, altmetrics has the potential to become a much more inclusive and reflective tool in times to come.