Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Caught Our Notice: To know if someone’s been vaccinated, just asking isn’t enough

with one comment

Via Wikimedia

Title: Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Preconception Period Among Women of Reproductive Age in Rural China – A Nationwide Study

What Caught Our Attention: When researchers set out to study hepatitis B among women in rural China, and they wanted to know if the women had been vaccinated against the virus, they simply asked them. While that can sometimes be useful, apparently it was a mistake in this case, as the reliance on patient memory injected too much doubt into these findings. 

JournalPaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

Authors: Qiongjie Zhou, Xiaotian Li, Qiaomei Wang, Haiping Shen, Yiping Zhang, Shikun Zhang, Ganesh Acharya

Affiliations: Fudan University, China; The Arctic University of Norway, Norway; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Female Reproductive Endocrine-Related Diseases, China; National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China, China; Karolinska Institute, Sweden

The Notice:

The above manuscript, published online on 15 June 2017 in Wiley Online Library (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, Cande V. Ananth, the Editor-in-Chief of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been made at the request of the authors since the data collected from self-report of the HBV vaccination remains unverified, and potentially subject to errors.

Date of Article: June 2017

Times Cited, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science: 1

Date of Notice: September 20, 2017

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at retractionwatchteam@gmail.com.

Comments
  • Mihiretu Kebede November 27, 2017 at 4:57 am

    As I understand from the story highlited here, the result is mainly based on self-reported vaccination uptake. I believe, eventhough it is not confirmatory approach or subject to recall bias, it is alsocheaper option to determine the vaccination uptake. I feel the authors made a mistake to retract this paper or there is something behind which is not covered in this story.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.