This readme.txt file was generated on 20220915 by Bakker, Theis-Mahon, and Brown Edits by DRUM curator 20220915 Recommended citation for the data: Bakker, Caitlin; Theis-Mahon, Nicole; Brown, Sarah Jane. (2022). Data underlying (The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses). Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/241503. ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Title of Dataset: Data Underlying (The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses) 2. Author Information Name: Caitlin Bakker Institution: University of Regina Email: caitlin.bakker@uregina.ca ORCID: 00000003-4154-8382 Name: Nicole Theis-Mahon Institution: University of Minnesota Email: theis025@umn.edu ORCID: 0000-0002-6913-5195 Name: Sarah Jane Brown Institution: University of Minnesota Email: sjbrown@umn.edu ORCID: 0000-00017699-4417 Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date): November 2021 to April 2022 Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: No funding is associated with this project. Overview: This project focuses on systematic reviews that cite retracted publications. The project assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR-2 criteria, and assesses how the work was cited (supporting, mentioning, or contrasting). -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC-BY-SA 3.0 US https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ Was data derived from another source? Retracted articles were identified using data provided by the Retraction Watch Database from the Center for Scientific Integrity. --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. Filename: AMSTAR-assessment.csv Short description: Methodological quality assessments of systematic reviews B. Filename: CitationMeaning.csv Short description: Assessment of how retracted publication is being cited 2. Relationship between files: File A contains the assessment of the systematic reviews, and File B contains the assessment of the citations to retracted publications within the systematic reviews included in File A. -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: The methods for identifying the systematic reviews are outlined in Brown et al. We evaluated the methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Data were recorded in Qualtrics. We assessed citation meaning first using scite, a web-based tool that relies on machine learning algorithms to determine the meaning of the citation. This was then verified by one of the researchers, who either confirmed or corrected the meaning. Methods for processing the data: Data were exported from Qualtrics as spreadsheets, which were subsequently normalized using OpenRefine. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: "AMSTAR-assessment.csv" ----------------------------------------- The original assessment is available here: Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. 1. Number of variables: 17 2. Number of cases/rows: 286 3. Variable List 1. Name: StudyID Description: Unique identifier for each systematic review 2. Name: Q1 Description: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? Possible Answers: Yes, No 3. Name: Q2 Description: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? Possible Answers: Yes, Partial Yes, No 4. Name: Q3 Description: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No 5. Name: Q4 Description: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Possible Answers: Yes, Partial Yes, No 6. Name: Q5 Description: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Possible Answers: Yes, No 7. Name: Q6 Description: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Possible Answers: Yes, No 8. Name: Q7 Description: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Possible Answers: Yes, Partial Yes, No 9. Name: Q8 Description: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Possible Answers: Yes, Partial Yes, No 10. Name: Q9 Description: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? Possible Answers: Yes, Partial Yes, No 11. Name: Q10 Description: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No 12. Name: Q11 Description: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? Possible Answers: Yes, No, No meta-analysis conducted 13. Name: Q12 Description: If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? Possible Answers: Yes, No, No meta-analysis conducted 14. Name: Q13 Description: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No 15. Name: Q14 Description: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No 16. Name: Q15 Description: If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No, No meta-analysis conducted 17. Name: Q16 Description: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? Possible Answers: Yes, No ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: "CitationMeaning.csv" ----------------------------------------- Number of variables: 6 Number of cases/rows: 324 Variable List 1. Name: StudyID Description: Unique identifier for each systematic review 2. Name: RetractedID Description: Unique identifier for each retracted article 3. Name: Scite.RetractedClassification Description: The classification of the citation's meaning according to scite.ai Possible Answers: Redacted. Data are available from Scite. Information on data access is available at https://scite.ai/data-and-services. 4. Name: Agreement Description: Whether the researcher agrees with scite.ai's classification Possible Answers: Yes (the researcher agrees with scite.ai) Unsure (the researcher needs additional information to determine whether they agree with scite.ai) No (the researcher does not agree with scite.ai) NA (scite.ai has not classified this citation) 5. Name: Researcher.RetractedClassification Description: The researcher's assessment of the meaning of the citation, where they have not previously stated their agreement with scite.ai's assessment Possible Answers: Supporting (the systematic review cites the retracted publication as valid/reinforces it) Contrasting (the systematic review identifies the retracted publication as retracted/refutes its findings) Mentioning (the systematic review includes a citation to the retracted publication, but does not rely on it extensively and instead uses it for background or context) 6. Name: Citation.Meaning Description: The final assessment of the meaning of the citation Possible Answers: Supporting (the systematic review cites the retracted publication as valid/reinforces it) Contrasting (the systematic review identifies the retracted publication as retracted/refutes its findings) Mentioning (the systematic review includes a citation to the retracted publication, but does not rely on it extensively and instead uses it for background or context)