When I was a grad student, I was explicitly advised to make such citations uncritical. Instead of saying, "Researchers A, B, and C failed to consider cases X, Y, and Z, which we address here," you would say, "Researchers A, B, and C solved this problem under the assumptions that X, Y, and Z were not issues. We extend their work here to handle these cases." That is, you say what they achieved, rather than what they didn't.

Everyone wins with this approach. Sure, those lazy bums didn't consider cases X, Y, and Z, but then no one else had solved the problem regardless of whether or not they handled X, Y, or Z. That's how A, B, and C's results got published!

You're building on their work. You look better for acknowledging it rather than trying to knock down those who came before. They are likely to be respected quite a bit better than you are. Also, researchers A, B, and C are the most likely candidates to be reviewing your paper. So there's that.

This is, of course, orthogonal to the issue of unreproducible experimental results.