Correction: Evaluation of the Profile and Treatment Results for Allergic Children

Abstract

This corrects "Othman RA, Hussein TA. Evaluation of the Profile and Treatment Results for Allergic Children." Adv. Life Sci. 2023 Oct;10S(1):19–24. doi: 10.62940/als.v10i0.1981.

Following the publication of this article, an internal audit — conducted in response to quality concerns raised by Web of Science — identified concerns regarding the adequacy of the peer review process, prompting an Editorial Expression of Concern on 20 June 2025. A subsequent detailed post-publication review identified significant ethical, methodological, and analytical shortcomings, including the retrospective analysis of clinical data from 422 pediatric patients without documented institutional ethical approval or informed consent, alongside multiple internal contradictions in reported findings. These concerns led to the initiation of a formal retraction process on 26 June 2025 in accordance with COPE guidelines and established publishing standards. However, following receipt of detailed justifications from the authors — including the provision of an institutional ethical approval statement and point-by-point responses addressing the methodological and analytical concerns — the Editorial Expression of Concern was rescinded on 23 July 2025. The article has additionally undergone minor corrections related to language and units. The earlier published copy of this article is available on request at als.editor@als-journal.com.

The Advancements in Life Sciences Editorial Office regrets that these issues were not identified prior to publication.

History of the correction process

Editorial Expression of Concern

20 June 2025: Following publication of this paper, the internal audit (consequent to concerns on quality raised by Web of Science) notified Advancements in Life Sciences about insufficient peer review. By this Editorial Expression of Concern, we alert the scientific community of this incidence as we assess if the reported scientific findings are reliable.

Retraction in Process

26 June 2025: Following a detailed post-publication review, significant ethical, methodological, and analytical concerns have been identified in this article. Specifically, the study retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 422 pediatric patients without any declaration of institutional ethical approval or documentation of informed consent, which constitutes a serious breach of ethical standards for human subject research. In addition, multiple methodological and statistical deficiencies were observed including but not limited to internal contradictions in reported findings (e.g., sex-based prevalence). These deficiencies make the findings scientifically unreliable. A formal retraction process has therefore been initiated in accordance with COPE guidance and established publishing standards. The retraction process will conclude upon receiving responses from the corresponding authors. In the meantime, the full text of the article shall remain inaccessible for citation. A show cause notice has also been issued to the responsible editorial team member for the evident oversight during the peer-review and editorial decision process.

Rescinded: Editorial Expression of Concern

23 July 2025: Editorial expression of concern issued on 20 June 2025 is hereby rescinded on account of authors' following justifications of the found technical shortcomings in light of COPE guidelines. An institutional ethical approval statement has also been provided by the authors to address research ethics concern.

1. Justification for the Retrospective Study Design:
This study was designed as a retrospective analysis because it allowed assessment of a large patient population over an extended period within limited resources. Retrospective studies are valuable for identifying epidemiological trends, clinical features, and treatment responses in real-world settings, especially in specialized units such as pediatric allergy clinics.
Moreover, retrospective data are often the first step before conducting prospective, longitudinal studies to generate hypotheses and detect local patterns.

2. Justification for Limited Generalizability:
We clearly stated that the results are specific to our unit and patient population and may not be generalized broadly. Our unit primarily serves urban and suburban populations, and referral patterns, environmental exposures, and healthcare accessibility likely influence the findings.
However, these results still provide a reliable baseline for future research in similar settings or populations.

3. Justification for Sex and Location Differences:
The observed male predominance (2.1:1 ratio) and higher urban prevalence are consistent with many global studies, particularly in pediatric populations where males are biologically more prone to wheezing illnesses early in life, likely due to anatomical and immunological differences.
Urban predominance may reflect greater exposure to pollution, indoor allergens, viral infections, and differing healthcare-seeking behaviors compared to rural areas.

4. Justification for Feeding Type Analysis:
The analysis of breastfeeding vs. artificial feeding is included because early feeding patterns are frequently studied for their impact on immune system development. While exclusive breastfeeding is generally considered protective, some studies have shown conflicting results in high-risk populations, particularly when strong genetic predisposition or environmental triggers are present. Our findings align with some reports showing no consistent protective effect against asthma in certain populations.

5. Justification for Using Total IgE and Eosinophil Counts:
Total IgE and eosinophil counts are commonly used clinical markers in the diagnosis and monitoring of allergic diseases. While they are not highly specific, elevated levels are often associated with allergic asthma, and their use is justified as part of routine allergy workups, particularly in resource-limited settings where advanced molecular testing is not feasible.

6. Justification for Outcome Classification:
Our classification of active vs. remission state was based on clear, clinically relevant criteria using patient symptoms and medication use. This approach provides a pragmatic method to assess treatment outcomes in real-world clinical settings and is suitable for retrospective studies.

7. Justification for the Role of Environmental Factors and Viral Triggers:
The inclusion of viral infections, cold air, indoor allergens, fumes, foods, puberty, and psychological stress as precipitating factors reflects both the clinical reality and the literature showing that asthma exacerbations often have multiple, overlapping triggers. The statistical analysis helped us identify which factors were associated with active or remission states in our cohort.

8. Justification for Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) as Primary Therapy:
ICS remains the mainstay of asthma management worldwide according to global guidelines (e.g., GINA). Our finding that most patients received ICS aligns with best-practice recommendations, reinforcing the validity of our treatment protocols.

9. Justification for Small Sample in Some Subgroups (e.g., Sulfonamide Reactions):
Some subgroups, such as reactions to specific drugs, had small sample sizes due to their rarity in the pediatric population. Despite small numbers, we presented these results for completeness and transparency.

10. Justification for Limitations:
We openly acknowledged the limitations of our study, including its retrospective nature, sample size, and single-center setting. However, these limitations are inherent to many hospital-based epidemiological studies and do not diminish the value of identifying local clinical patterns.

Correction Published

03 September 2025: The necessary corrections have been carried out in the Version of Record. Expression of concern is hereby revoked.