After this article [1] was published, concerns were raised about the reported study, and corresponding author FTZ contacted PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases to notify the journal of a discrepancy between the reported focus of the article and the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

The following issues were noted in editorial follow-up:

• The stated aim for the study is “to summarize the pooled evidence on the effectiveness of carbon dioxide-based cryotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis”; however, most (but not all) included studies appear to evaluate a different treatment, carbon dioxide laser therapy.
• Inaccuracies in the referencing of included studies that limits support for, and independent evaluation of, the systematic review and meta-analysis outcomes:
  1. ◦ There appear to be discrepancies between reference numbering used in S4 Table of [1] and in the Reference list of [1].
  2. ◦ Descriptions of some of the studies in the Characteristics of included primary studies subsection of the Results section do not appear to fully align with the specific in-text citations provided.
  3. ◦ The Reference list for [1] does not appear to include a study fully matching the description of Nilforoushzadeh MA et al. (2014) reported in S4 Table.
  4. ◦ Tilahun F et al. (2023) is reported in S4 Table and included in both the systematic review and meta-analysis, but details of the associated study are not sufficiently reported to allow readers to access the study data.
• Further concerns about methodology and analyses:
  1. ◦ The search strategy may not be sufficiently comprehensive.
     • The use of a free-full-text filter may restrict retrieval.
     • No supplementary search methods are reported, such as backward citation tracking or cited-by searches.
  2. ◦ The selection and application of statistical methodology is unclear. In Figs 4-6, values labeled as “effect sizes” range from 64.0 to 95.5. These values appear to represent cure rates (percentages) with reported 95% confidence intervals extending below 0% and/or above 100%.
  3. ◦ In S3 Table, some overall bias ratings in the risk-of-bias assessment appear to be inconsistent with the domain level assessments.
  4. ◦ The article [1] does not include an assessment of the certainty of evidence, for example using the GRADE framework, limiting interpretation of the strength and reliability of the reported findings.
• The published link to the underlying study data for [1] is not functional.

The authors did not respond to editorial requests for comment on the above-mentioned concerns.

In light of these concerns, which call into question the validity and reliability of the published results and conclusions, the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Editors retract this article [1].

EGB agreed with the retraction. FTZ did not agree with the retraction. BMG and KAG either did not respond directly or could not be reached.