Fourteen letters, five cases reported today.

• What is not here.Of the other nine, seven are not reported: in three, a closer check ruled the case out, and for four we could not yet read the full text or the retraction notice. Two cases are still open and will be reported later.
• How to read each case.The citing paper, the retracted paper, the notice’s reason in its own words, what the citing passage does with it, the dates, and any reply. Where a journal retracted a paper and published a corrected version, we say whether the corrected version reports the same result.

• Citing paperDessie ZG, Zewotir T. Mortality-related risk factors of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies and 423,117 patients. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:855. doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06536-3
• Retracted paperMehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN. Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007621. Notice doi:10.1056/NEJMc2021225, online 4 June 2020. The authors were “unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article” and asked for the retraction. No corrected version was published.
• What the citing paper does with itPools the study as one of its 42. Its table gives the study’s 8,910 patients, 515 deaths and adjusted odds ratios; the 8,910 patients are part of the 423,117 in the title.
• Our readingCited as support.
• DatesLiterature search to 31 August 2020, nearly three months after the notice; received 10 June 2021; online 21 August 2021. The retraction is not mentioned.
• ReplyWe wrote to the authors on 15 October 2026. No reply as of 1 November.

• Citing paperNg WH, Tipih T, Makoah NA, Vermeulen JG, Goedhals D, Sempa JB, Burt FJ, Taylor A, Mahalingam S. Comorbidities in SARS-CoV-2 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. mBio 2021;12(1):e03647-20. doi:10.1128/mBio.03647-20
• Retracted paperMehra et al., N Engl J Med 2020 (above), which reported that ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not linked to a higher risk of death in hospital. Notice doi:10.1056/NEJMc2021225, online 4 June 2020. The authors were “unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article” and asked for the retraction. No corrected version was published.
• What the citing paper does with itCites it, as one of four references, for these drugs being “not associated with severe COVID-19 and may even be beneficial”. The study is not among the pooled studies.
• Our readingCited as support.
• DatesSearches from 1 December 2019 to 15 September 2020; received 24 December 2020, more than six months after the notice; accepted 11 January 2021; online 9 February 2021. The retraction is not mentioned.
• ReplyWe wrote to the authors on 15 October 2026. No reply as of 1 November.

• Citing paperSeighali N, Abdollahi A, Shafiee A, et al. The global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder among patients coping with post COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID): a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2024;24:105. doi:10.1186/s12888-023-05481-6
• Retracted paperHuang C et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397:220-232. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8. Notice “Retraction and republication”, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01175-3, online 9 June 2023: after a reader raised inconsistencies, the authors asked for a substantive data correction, and The Lancet chose to “retract the original published version of the Article and publish a corrected version” (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00810-3).
• Same result in the corrected version?Yes, for the point cited: the odds ratio for anxiety or depression, most severe against least severe illness, is 1.77 (1.05 to 2.97) in the original and 1.76 (1.05 to 2.96) in the corrected version.
• What the citing paper does with itCites the original version, with one other paper, for the severity of the first infection as a risk factor for mental disorders.
• Our readingCited as support, of the version that was withdrawn; the corrected version reports the same result.
• DatesReceived 27 July 2023, seven weeks after the notice; online 6 February 2024. The retraction is not mentioned.
• ReplyWe wrote to the authors on 15 October 2026. No reply as of 1 November.

• Citing paperLluch C, Galiana L, Doménech P, Sansó N. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction in healthcare personnel: a systematic review of the literature published during the first year of the pandemic. Healthcare 2022;10(2):364. doi:10.3390/healthcare10020364
• Retracted paperPanagioti M et al. Association between physician burnout and patient safety, professionalism, and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178(10):1317-1331. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3713. Notice doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1755, online 18 May 2020: a university panel found no evidence of intentional fabrication but, because of flaws in the review process, “cannot confirm that the results of the meta-analysis are wholly valid”. No corrected version.
• What the citing paper does with itOne of four references for a general statement that these factors are “key to achieving the adequate well-being of healthcare providers”. It does not use the retracted results.
• Our readingMentioned in passing.
• DatesReceived 20 January 2022; online 13 February 2022. The retraction is not mentioned.
• ReplyWe wrote to the authors on 15 October 2026. No reply as of 1 November.

• Citing paperMcElhanon BO, McCracken C, Karpen S, Sharp WG. Gastrointestinal symptoms in autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2014;133(5):872-883. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3995
• Retracted paperWakefield AJ et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998;351:637-641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Notice doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4, 6 February 2010: after the UK General Medical Council’s ruling, The Lancet fully retracted the paper.
• What the citing paper does with itCites it as background on the controversy, marks it “RETRACTED” in the reference list, and cites the retraction notice itself as the next reference. The text says the research was retracted.
• Our readingFlagged as retracted. This is how a retracted paper can be cited well.
• DatesOnline 1 May 2014, four years after the notice.
• Reply (15 October 2026)Dr Sharp said the paper cites the study as background on the controversy, marks it as retracted and says so in the text, so no correction is needed. In his words: “we cite this work as retracted in the references.”

The reference list is from the publisher’s record; the passage is as Dr Sharp quoted it in his reply.

• CorrectionsIf anything here is wrong, write to letters@sanecite.com. We correct it in public. Replies that arrive later are added beside the case, with one short quote of the main point.
• More from SaneCiteThe Lists name the papers, journals and authors where retracted work is cited as support most often. Findings has the census charts and data.