Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications

Background and purpose Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified “article duplication,” “plagiarism,” and “fabricated results” as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included. Results The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45–0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16–0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with “plagiarism” being the most common reason for retraction, followed by “duplicate publication.” Discussion The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769

Application of Homozygosity Haplotype Analysis and Whole-exome sequencing to identify potentially functional low-frequency variants involved in Multiple Sclerosis in Sar-dinia families

Raw data used for the obtaining the results described in the paper Application of Homozygosity Haplotype Analysis and Whole-exome sequencing to identify potentially functional low-frequency variants involved in Multiple Sclerosis in Sar-dinia familie

Homozygosity Haplotype and Whole-Exome Sequencing Analysis to Identify Potentially Functional Rare Variants Involved in Multiple Sclerosis among Sardinian Families

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a complex multifactorial autoimmune disease, whose sex- and age-adjusted prevalence in Sardinia (Italy) is among the highest worldwide. To date, 233 loci were associated with MS and almost 20% of risk heritability is attributable to common genetic variants, but many low-frequency and rare variants remain to be discovered. Here, we aimed to contribute to the understanding of the genetic basis of MS by investigating potentially functional rare variants. To this end, we analyzed thirteen multiplex Sardinian families with Immunochip genotyping data. For five families, Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) data were also available. Firstly, we performed a non-parametric Homozygosity Haplotype analysis for identifying the Region from Common Ancestor (RCA). Then, on these potential disease-linked RCA, we searched for the presence of rare variants shared by the affected individuals by analyzing WES data. We found: (i) a variant (43181034 T > G) in the splicing region on exon 27 of CUL9; (ii) a variant (50245517 A > C) in the splicing region on exon 16 of ATP9A; (iii) a non-synonymous variant (43223539 A > C), on exon 9 of TTBK1; (iv) a non-synonymous variant (42976917 A > C) on exon 9 of PPP2R5D; and v) a variant (109859349-109859354) in 3 ' UTR of MYO16