Background: There is still a lack of knowledge on the association between cholecystectomy and liver disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the available evidence on the association of cholecystectomy with liver disease and quantify the magnitude of the risk of liver disease after cholecystectomy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched systematically from database inception to January 2023 to identify eligible studies that evaluated the association between cholecystectomy and the risk of liver disease. Meta-analysis was conducted to obtain a summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Results: We identified 20 studies with a total of 27,320,709 individuals and 283,633 liver disease cases. Cholecystectomy was associated with an increased risk of liver disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34-1.98). In particular, cholecystectomy was found to be significantly associated with a 54% increased risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.18-2.01), a 173% increased risk of cirrhosis (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.81-4.12), and a 46% increased risk of primary liver cancer (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.82). Conclusions: There is an association between cholecystectomy and the risk of liver disease. Our results suggest that strict surgical indications should be implemented to reduce unnecessary cholecystectomy. Additionally, the routine assessment of liver disease is necessary for patients with a history of cholecystectomy. More prospective large-sample studies are required for better estimates of the risk. Export

The increasing prevalence of retracted publications in stem cell research presents significant challenges to scientific integrity. Although retraction notices are issued, retracted studies continue to be cited, facilitating the dissemination of unreliable findings. This study aimed to systematically explore the characteristics of retracted stem cell publications and evaluate the impact of retractions on subsequent citations. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, Retraction Watch Database, and PubMed was conducted from their inception through July 25, 2024, to identify retracted stem cell publications. Characteristics including publication details, retraction reasons, and citation counts were extracted. To assess the impact of retraction on subsequent citations, we compared citation patterns between a random sample of retracted papers and matched non-retracted controls from identical journals and issues. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether papers citing retracted articles had an elevated risk of subsequent retraction. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, t-tests, and Mann–Kendall tests were used for data analysis. The systematic search identified 1421 records, with 517 publications meeting inclusion criteria. Temporal analysis revealed two significant trends: an increasing retraction rate that peaked at 0.84% in 2023 and a declining time-to-retraction (median: 30 months, interquartile range: 13–60; Mann–Kendall, tau = − 0.29; P < 0.001). Hospital-affiliated researchers from China contributed to 244 (47.2%) of retractions. Data and image flaws were identified in 360 (69.6%) of retractions. Among 472 Web of Science-indexed retracted publications, 366 (77.5%) accumulated 4884 post-retraction citations, with 114 (24.2%) receiving more citations post-retraction than pre-retraction. Analysis of a random subset of retracted articles (n = 53) demonstrated that only 14 (4.2%) out of 334 post-retraction citations referenced the retraction notice. Compared with 639 non-retracted control publications, retracted articles showed significantly lower post-retraction citation rates (mean rank: 291.32 vs. 351.08; P = 0.01). Moreover, papers citing retracted articles exhibited an 11-fold higher risk of subsequent retraction (odds ratio (OR): 11.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.06–17.43). This analysis reveals substantial research integrity challenges within stem cell research. These findings suggest the necessity for enhanced surveillance mechanisms and standardized protocols to identify and curtail the dissemination of flawed research.