Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes

Julia Littell and colleagues argue that better adherence to ethical standards for correction or retraction of unreliable publications is essential to avoid harmful effects on public policy, clinical practice, and public health

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMJ (Online) Vol. 384; p. e076518
Main Authors Littell, Julia H, Abel, Kathryn M, Biggs, M Antonia, Blum, Robert W, Foster, Diana Greene, Haddad, Lisa B, Major, Brenda, Munk-Olsen, Trine, Polis, Chelsea B, Robinson, Gail Erlick, Rocca, Corinne H, Russo, Nancy Felipe, Steinberg, Julia R, Stewart, Donna E, Stotland, Nada Logan, Upadhyay, Ushma D, van Ditzhuijzen, Jenneke
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England British Medical Journal Publishing Group 27.02.2024
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subjects
Abortion
Abortion, Induced
Abortion, Spontaneous
Analysis
Anxiety
Cohort analysis
Editorials
Ethics
FDA approval
Female
Humans
Mental depression
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - epidemiology
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental health
Meta-analysis
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Pregnancy
Public health
Public policy
Science
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Julia Littell and colleagues argue that better adherence to ethical standards for correction or retraction of unreliable publications is essential to avoid harmful effects on public policy, clinical practice, and public health
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1756-1833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj-2023-076518