Objective: There are increasing concerns about the trustworthiness of the medical literature. When identified after publication, such concerns about published papers can be addressed through a post-publication review (PPR) system. We evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of this system while addressing studies in women’s health. Design: Cohort study Setting: The project was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Australia. Sample: Papers Published in Women’s Health Journals Methods: We wrote to the editors and publishers about potentially untrustworthy papers in women’s health and requested an investigation according to the procedure established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Main outcome measure: For each paper, we tabulated the trial characteristics, investigation outcome [retraction, expression of concern (EoC), correction or no wrongdoing found] and time to decision. We also report the case completion rate per journal and publisher. Results: Between 7 ^th November 2017 and 30 ^th April 2024, we wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At present, 263 (30%) of 891 papers received an outcome, with 227 (86%) labelled as problematic (152 (58%) papers retracted; 75 (29%) EoC). It took a median time of 16 months for editors and publishers to decide, with 13% of the flagged cases reaching a decision within 12 months. Conclusions: The current PPR process is inefficient and ineffective in assessing and removing untrustworthy data from the medical literature. Funding: No funding was sought for this project.