Updates are available Correction dated 2026-07-31

Article History

Received: 5 September 2025

Accepted: 20 November 2025

First Online: 26 December 2025

Change Date: 24 July 2026

Change Type: Update

Change Details: The original online version of this article was revised. In the abstract, the sentence "Despite retraction, studies were included in subsequent evidence reviews (6/17 studies, 35%) and one was used to inform clinical practice recommendations (1/17 studies, 6%)" was corrected to "Four already-retracted economic evaluations were included in subsequent evidence reviews (4/17 studies, 24%) and one was used to inform clinical practice recommendations (1/17 studies, 6%)." In the Results section of the article, the sentence "In spite of retraction, 6/17 studies [37, 39, 42, 43, 47, 50] were incorporated into subsequent systematic reviews as part of the economic evidence base—without being marked as retracted [62–69]" was replaced by the following: "Six of the 17 economic evaluations [37, 39, 42, 43, 47, 50] were cited in 8 systematic reviews [62–69]. In 4/8 reviews [63, 64, 66, 67], the literature search had already been conducted or the review manuscript had already been accepted, prior to the retraction of the economic evaluation. In 1/8 reviews [68], the literature search was only conducted post-retraction. Thus, the review incorporated the already-retracted economic evaluation (a downstream effect). In the remaining 3/8 reviews [62, 65, 69], literature search dates were not reported. But the economic evaluations had already been retracted when these reviews were submitted to their respective journals. Therefore, it was assumed that these reviews likely incorporated the already-retracted economic evaluations (possible downstream effects)." Finally, in the Discussion section, the sentence "These include incorporation of the evaluations in subsequent evidence synthesis [62–67] and even in clinical practice guidelines [70]" was corrected to read "These include incorporation of the evaluations in subsequent evidence synthesis [62, 65, 68, 69] and even in clinical practice guidelines [70]".

Change Date: 31 July 2026

Change Type: Correction

Change Details: A Correction to this paper has been published:

Change Details: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-026-00671-w

Declarations

Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Availability of data and materials: The database file used to identify included articles is available upon request.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Code availability: Not applicable.

Author contributions: The research was conceptualised by EJM with support from JCT, AH, and DAS. The protocol was initially drafted by EJM and reviewed and approved by JCT, AH, and DAS. Screening and selection were conducted by AH, EJM, and DAS. EJM conducted the analyses with support from JCT and DAS. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript, which was initially drafted by EJM.