Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘anaesthesia’ Category

Co-author of retraction record-holder likely fabricated his own data, analysis shows

with 2 comments

In 2012, John Carlisle, a British anesthesiologist, demonstrated conclusively using statistics that Yoshitaka Fujii had faked data in many studies. Fujii — as followers of this blog well know — now holds the record for most retractions by an individual author (183).

Carlisle’s work accomplished two things: It put to rest any doubt that problems with Fujii’s work might have resulted from innocent mistakes, and it gave journals a mathematical tool for conducting investigations into potential cases of misconduct.

Now comes the payoff. In a new paper, Carlisle and another anesthesiologist, John Loadsman, take aim at one of Fujii’s frequent co-authors, Yuhji Saitoh of Yachiyo Medical Center and Tokyo Women’s Medical University in Japan. The pair analyzed data from 31 studies Saitoh published between 1993 and 2012 — including one study that was rejected in 2015 — for a total of 32 papers. Of those, 23 did not include Fujii as an author.

Writing in the journal Anaesthesia, where Carlisle published his first study about Fujii, he and Loadsman state that: Read the rest of this entry »

To catch a cheat: Paper improves on stats method that nailed prolific retractor Fujii

with 2 comments

anaesthesiaThe author of a 2012 paper in Anaesthesia which offered the statistical equivalent of coffin nails to the case against record-breaking fraudster Yoshitaka Fujii (currently at the top of our leaderboard) has written a new article in which he claims to have improved upon his approach.

As we’ve written previously, John Carlisle, an anesthesiologist in the United Kingdom, analyzed nearly 170 papers by Fujii and found aspects of the reported data to be astronomically improbable. It turns out, however, that he made a mistake that, while not fatal to his initial conclusions, required fixing in a follow-up paper, titled “Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials,” also published in Anaesthesia.

According to the abstract:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

July 7th, 2015 at 9:30 am

Failure to cite leads to ignoble end for xenon paper, and a correction

with 2 comments

anaesthesiaXenon may be an inert gas, but that doesn’t mean papers about the molecule aren’t subject to change.

Indeed, the journal Anaesthesia has retracted a 2010 article about xenon-based anesthesia, and corrected a 2005 article by some of the same researchers, for what appears to be a case of wurst slicing.

The 2005 paper, “Comparison of xenon-based anaesthesia compared with total intravenous anaesthesia in high risk surgical patients,” came from a group at the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, in Kiel, Germany. It has been cited 10 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

Unglaublich! Boldt investigation may lead to more than 90 retractions

with 17 comments

Ludwigshafen Hospital, via Wikimedia

Self-plagiarism alert: A very similar version of this post is being published online in Anesthesiology News, where one of us (AM) is managing editor.

Unglaublich is the German word for unbelievable, and it’s an apt description for the latest development in the case of Joachim Boldt.

Boldt, a prominent German anesthesiologist, has been at the center of a research and publishing investigation since last October, when the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia retracted a 2009 article of his over concerns of data manipulation. This morning, the German medical board overseeing the case, the Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz (LÄK-RLP),  released its findings — and they are truly stunning.

According to LAK, somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 of Boldt’s published articles might require retraction because the investigator failed to obtain approval from an institutional review board to conduct the research.

We don’t read German. But, fortunately, the LÄK-RLP announcement was accompanied by a joint letter posted to the websites of 11 major anesthesia journals. We do read English, and here’s what that letter says: Read the rest of this entry »