|
|
|
|
|
|
by Vt71fcAqt7
728 days ago
|
|
|
Most citations are just noting previous work. Here are some papers citing the retracted one. (Selected randomly). >Therefore, MSC-based bone regeneration is considered an optimal approach [53]. [0] >MSC-subtypes were originally considered to contain pluripotent developmental capabilities (79,80). [1] Both these examples give a single passing mention of the article. It makes no sense for thousands of researchers to go out and remove these citations. Realisticly you can't expect people to perform every experiment they read before they cite it. Meanwhile there has been a lot of development in this field despite the retracted paper. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/8/8/886 [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/jev.v4.30087 |
|
|