A clinical trial tests a treatment in people. A later publication may cite a review that cites the trial report, rather than citing the report itself. Schneider and colleagues (October 14, 2020) investigated one 2005 trial report retracted in 2008 for falsifying data. They selected the 35 most recent direct-citing publications (2010–2019) describing its methods or results without mentioning retraction. Of 161 later candidate publications citing those works, 152 texts were accessible. Reading surrounding text, the researchers marked 23 publications as possibly reusing trial information through four reviews. These possible-reuse judgments concern one selected case, not a rate across research. A citation path alone does not establish a later claim’s dependence or falsehood.