Clinical Trial on the Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Metabolic Profiles in Diabetic Hemodialysis
Assessed by RV012 · Lecturer (Teaching & Research)
Assessed on 30 Oct 2025
OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions Serious concerns
DOI 10.1055/s-0043-119221 (opens in new tab)
Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEAFB2FF36932B98401
5 Research Questions · 45 Evidence Items
Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?
Rationale: One retracted paper from their reference list - this would not concern me much. However, there is a note of concern on the journal website as well. "Since publication of this article, serious concerns have been raised about the integrity of the reported methods, results and analysis. Responses by the leading author and ethics committees have been unsatisfactory and inconclusive; we advise readers to interpret the information presented in the article with due caution.". So the paper is not retracted, but these are serious limitations.
Supporting Evidence (1)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Long-Term Vitamin D Supplementation Affects Metabolic Status in Vitamin D-Deficient Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
10.1093/jn/nxab073 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 28369
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Data;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s)
About Authors: Fariba Raygan, Hamid Talari, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Fereshteh Bahmani
Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
Rationale: As before, journal page also has an expression of concern.
Supporting Evidence (1)
PubPeer ThreadSource: PubPeer.com — post-publication peer review comments
https://pubpeer.com/publications/78448E42EA56FB7500B8A3D0B70110 (opens in new tab)PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
There are many concerns about the integrity of 172 publications by this research group, including this one. Some of the concerns are published 1. Anaesthesia 2020;75:1683–92, see Supplementary data. This paper is A166 2. Account Res 2020;28:149-61. 3. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;131:22-29. Journals and publishers were notified of these concerns in July 2019. 18 publications have an expression of concern, and 6 have been retracted. To our knowledge there has been no public response about any of the concerns. We think these publications are unreliable
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/78448E42EA56FB7500B8A3D0B70110 (opens in new tab)
Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?
Rationale: Most authors have had numerous expressions of concern.
Supporting Evidence (41)
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation influences biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress in overweight and vitamin D-deficient women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial
10.1111/cen.14892 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 43979
Rationale: Investigation by Third Party
About Authors: Fatemeh Foroozanfard, Mehri Jamilian, Teibeh Hashemi, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Fereshteh Bahmani
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Comparison of myo-inositol and metformin on clinical, metabolic and genetic parameters in polycystic ovary syndrome: A randomized controlled clinical trial
10.1111/cen.14889 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 43984
Rationale: Investigation by Third Party
About Authors: Fatemeh Foroozanfard, Mehri Jamilian, Fereshteh Bahmani, Hamidreza Jamilian, Esmat Aghadavod, Faraneh Afshar Ebrahimi
Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database
Comparison of myo-inositol and metformin on mental health parameters and biomarkers of oxidative stress in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
10.1080/0167482x.2024.2346385 (opens in new tab)RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 53693
Rationale: Concerns/Issues About Data;Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Investigation by Third Party;Objections by Author(s);Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s)
About Authors: Fatemeh Foroozanfard, Mehri Jamilian, Fereshteh Bahmani, Hamidreza Jamilian, Faraneh Afshar Ebrahimi
Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
Rationale: Registration ok, but update in 2019 did not add any information even though paper was published in 2017. Recruitment started on the 21st December 2016, finished in February 2017. 12-week follow up, paper submitted in July 2017. Very short timescales.
Supporting Evidence (2)
Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)
Registration ID: IRCT201611155623N92
Registry: IRCT
Registry Link: https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=IRCT201611155623N92 (opens in new tab)
Registration Date: 21 Dec 2016
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: 2016-12, LLM Recruitment Start: 2016-12. Deemed prospective at month level.
Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text
Recruitment Start: 12-2016
Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date Methods section states 'from December 2016', which is used as the recruitment start date.
Recruitment End: 02-2017
Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date Methods section states 'to February 2017', which is used as the recruitment finish date.
Study End: 02-2017
Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date Methods section states 'from December 2016 to February 2017'. February 2017 is used as the study end date.
Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?
Rationale: I would have serious concerns about the paper even if it has not been retracted - I think this shows one of the benefits at the tool clearly. I would not trust including information from the paper in a review.