About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘anesthesia & analgesia retractions’ Category

Columbia University misconduct retraction highlights what’s wrong with the retraction process

with 20 comments

jcacoverThe Journal of Clinical Anesthesia has a retraction of a 2006 paper by a group from Columbia University that, to our minds, is the poster child for how not to handle such things.

The article, “Dexmedetomidine infusion is associated with enhanced renal function after thoracic surgery,” was written by Robert J. Frumento, Helene G. Logginidou, Staffan Wahlander, Gebhard Wagener, Hugh R. Playford and Robert N. Sladen, who now is chief of critical care at the institution. The paper has been cited 30 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Why do we bother to name all the authors? Here’s why: According to the retraction notice, one of them — but don’t ask which — is guilty of research misconduct: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183

leave a comment »

a&amisconductcoverKeeping up with the various investigations into the activities of Yoshitaka Fujii — the assumed record holder for retractions by a single author, with 172 likely — can be a challenge. Between the journals pulling his papers and the institutions looking into his misconduct, it’s hard to keep everything straight.

But we have a new report, from a past employer, that makes for interesting reading and helps tie up some loose ends. The document is from Tsukuba University, where Fujii worked more than a decade ago when questions about the propriety of his findings first surfaced. Read the rest of this entry »

Update on Fujii: Anesthesia journal finds overwhelming statistical evidence of data fabrication

with 6 comments

There’s a bit more this afternoon on the story of Yoshitaka Fujii, the Japanese anesthesiologist accused of fraud and other misconduct that we reported on yesterday.

The British journal Anaesthesia, which has been looking into Fujii’s research record, has posted four articles and editorials about the case and related issues on its website. One in particular is remarkable for its conclusions. Written by a UK anesthesiologist named John Carlisle, the article claims to have analyzed 169 randomized controlled trials that Fujii conducted between 1991 and 2011.

According to the abstract (which we formatted for readability, and which should be online shortly, we’re told): Read the rest of this entry »

Plagiarists plagiarized: A daisy chain of retractions at Anesthesia & Analgesia

with 7 comments

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.

If a plagiarist plagiarizes from an author who herself has plagiarized, do we call it a wash and go for a beer?

That scenario is precisely what Steven L. Shafer found himself facing recently. Shafer, editor-in-chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia (A&A), learned that authors of a 2008 case report in his publication had lifted two-and-a-half paragraphs of text from a 2004 paper published in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

A contrite retraction letter, which appears in the December issue of A&A, from the lead author, Sushma Bhatnagar, of New Delhi, India, called the plagiarism “unintended” and apologized for the incident. Straightforward enough.

But then things get sticky. Read the rest of this entry »

Top German anesthesiologist’s cardiac surgery paper retracted over “very serious misrepresentations”

leave a comment »

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.

A leading German anesthesiologist with more than 200 papers to his name has been accused of misrepresenting critical aspects of a paper  — possibly including the data itself — published late last year in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia.

In a retraction notice published online today, Steven L. Shafer, editor-in-chief of the journal, writes that Joachim Boldt and his coauthors failed to obtain approval from an institutional review board, did not get patient consent and did not follow up as promised with volunteers in their study, reported in the December 2009 article, “Cardiopulmonary Bypass Priming Using a High Dose of a Balanced Hydroxyethyl Starch Versus an Albumin-Based Priming System.”

In addition, the journal said, it has reason to suspect that data in the paper were fabricated, a possibility that is being investigated by German authorities. As the notice states: Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,331 other followers