A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted
Assessed by RV002 · Business Manager
Assessed on 3 Nov 2025
OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions No concerns
DOI 10.1080/08989621.2022.2082290 (opens in new tab)
Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEA6DBDE4E81DF5F0FA
5 Research Questions · 33 Evidence Items
Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?
Rationale: Agree - the nature of the paper is such that it cites retracted papers! It has not been retracted itself though
Supporting Evidence (27)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Low-Dose Vitamin D Prevents Muscular Atrophy and Reduces Falls and Hip Fractures in Women after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
10.1159/000480144 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 12296
Rationale: Complaints about Author;Concerns/Issues About Data
About Author: Tomohiro Kanoko
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Menatetrenone and vitamin D2 with calcium supplements prevent nonvertebral fracture in elderly women with Alzheimer’s disease
10.1016/j.bone.2017.10.007 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 16226
Rationale: Falsification/Fabrication of Data;False/Forged Authorship;Investigation by Company/Institution;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Misconduct - Official Investigation(s) and/or Finding(s);Misconduct by Author
About Authors: Tomohiro Kanoko, Kei Satoh
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Beneficial Effect of Etidronate Therapy in Immobilized Hip Fracture Patients
10.1097/phm.0000000000000893 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 16920
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Authorship/Affiliation;Falsification/Fabrication of Data;Investigation by Company/Institution;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Misconduct - Official Investigation(s) and/or Finding(s);Misconduct by Author;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s)
About Authors: Tomohiro Kanoko, Kei Satoh
Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
Rationale: There have been a few comments on PubPeer correcting typos in the original paper, but these do not seem to raise any concerns over the integrity of the research carried out, or the paper overall
Supporting Evidence (4)
PubPeer ThreadSource: PubPeer.com — post-publication peer review comments
https://pubpeer.com/publications/16FE217615B0BBB47C11745DCA7DA2 (opens in new tab)PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
Previously, Avenell et al. (2019) concluded that the findings of 13/36 (36%) systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and other reviews would likely change if the retracted trials they cited were removed. Referring to: Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Grey, A., Gamble, G., & Bolland, M. (2019). An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: Systematic search of affected literature. BMJ Open, 9(10), e031909. However, in Table 2 of Avenell et al. (2019), it is indicated that the findings of 13/32 (or ~41%) of the findings of affected publications would likely change. Could the authors please check if it supposed to be 13/32 or 13/36, and thus, 36% or 41%.
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/16FE217615B0BBB47C11745DCA7DA2 (opens in new tab)
PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
PS 2022 paper: "Following suspicions aroused during the conduct of a Cochrane review (Avenell et al. 2009), 33 randomized trials by Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto were investigated, and findings published (Bolland et al. 2016). Of these publications, twenty-eight were retracted between 2016–2019 in the field of osteoporosis" 2019 paper: "By May 2019, 27/33 of these affected trial reports had been retracted" Were 27 or 28 papers retracted?
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/16FE217615B0BBB47C11745DCA7DA2 (opens in new tab)
PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
PS 2 "By August 2021, 72 citing publications listed by WoS themselves had 10,493 citations, and 10 unlisted by WoS had 424 citations on Scopus. Of these 82 citing publications, 67 (82%) had at least one citation in 2021." Do the authors mean 72, or 82?
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/16FE217615B0BBB47C11745DCA7DA2 (opens in new tab)
Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?
Rationale: Agree - none of the authors have any retractions or anything to raise serious concerns
Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
Rationale: The nature of the paper is such that registration would not be required
Supporting Evidence (2)
Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)
No trial registration found
Assessment Rationale:How INSPECT-AI determined the prospective registration status by comparing dates LLM-extracted recruitment start date (normalized_date) is missing or empty.
Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text
Recruitment Start: N/A
Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date No recruitment start date found after a full search of the document.
Recruitment End: N/A
Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date No recruitment finish date found after a full search of the document.
Study End: N/A
Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date No study end date found after a full search of the document.
Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?
Rationale: The only possible concern is around comments raised on PubPeer but these seem to have been addressed