Comparative Study Between Single-Incision and Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Assessed by RV016 · Research Manager/Fellow
Assessed on 20 Nov 2025
OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions No concerns
DOI 10.1089/lap.2012.0284 (opens in new tab)
Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEAF9AD3B745DD0888B
5 Research Questions · 4 Evidence Items
Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?
Rationale: No rationale provided
Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
Rationale: No rationale provided
Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?
Rationale: Possibly needs further investigation
Supporting Evidence (2)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Revisiting the male genetic landscape of China: a multi-center study of almost 38,000 Y-STR haplotypes
10.1007/s00439-021-02413-w (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 34665
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Data;Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s)
About Author: Wook Kim
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Revisiting the male genetic landscape of China: a multi-center study of almost 38,000 Y-STR haplotypes
10.1007/s00439-017-1759-x (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 34667
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Data;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Updated to Retraction
About Author: Wook Kim
Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
Rationale: No rationale provided
Supporting Evidence (2)
Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)
Registration ID: NCT00816933
Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00816933 (opens in new tab)
Registration Date: 02-01-2009
Prospective:Whether the trial was registered before participant recruitment began Yes
Assessment Rationale:How INSPECT-AI determined the prospective registration status by comparing dates Comparison performed at month level. Registration: 2009-01, LLM Recruitment Start: 2009-02. Deemed prospective at month level.
Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text
Recruitment Start: 02-2009
Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date Study Design: 'Between February 2009 and April 2010, 102 patients with appendicitis were enrolled in this study.'
Recruitment End: 04-2010
Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date Study Design: 'Between February 2009 and April 2010, 102 patients with appendicitis were enrolled in this study.'
Study End: N/A
Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date No explicit study end date found.
Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?
Rationale: Not quite no concerns - to noting/checking the author on retraction watch (ethics/consent issues) is one and the same