Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘jama’ Category

“Fabricated results” retract JAMA clinical trial, plus a sub-analysis of the data

with 3 comments

Screen Shot 2015-09-14 at 11.00.11 AMA JAMA clinical trial that suggested a blood pressure drug could help patients increase their physical fitness, and a sub-analysis of those data, have been retracted after “an admission of fabricated results” by the first author on both papers.

The three-year clinical trial was published in JAMA in 2013.  It was retracted this morning.

The trial found ramipril helped patients with artery disease walk longer and with less pain, according to the abstract:

Among patients with intermittent claudication, 24-week treatment with ramipril resulted in significant increases in pain-free and maximum treadmill walking times compared with placebo. This was associated with a significant increase in the physical functioning component of the SF-36 score.

The retraction note explains how the fabricated data came to light: 

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Shannon Palus

September 14th, 2015 at 12:40 pm

JAMA issues mega-correction for data breach letter due to “wording and data errors”

with 2 comments

s_cover_jcv062315A JAMA letter published in April on data breaches accidentally included some data that shouldn’t have been published, either — specifically, “wording and data errors” that affected five sentences and more than 10 entries in a table. One result — a reported increase in breaches over time — also went from statistically significant to “borderline” significant, according to the first author. (So yeah, this post earns our “mega correction” category.)

According to an author, an “older version” of a table made it into the letter, “Data Breaches of Protected Health Information in the United States,” which was corrected in the journal’s June 23/30 issue.

The letter and table in question detail 949 breaches of “unencrypted protected health information.”  The letter says the number of breaches has increased from 2010 to 2013; the original article claimed that the P value on that increase was <.001, but the correction says it’s really 0.07. The original says 29.1 million personal records were affected in those breaches; the real number is 29.0. And so on.

Read the rest of this entry »

JAMA vitamin-hip fracture study earns Expression of Concern for integrity issues

with 4 comments

jama coverJAMA has issued an Expression of Concern about a 2005 study of whether two different types of vitamin B could prevent broken hips in people who’d suffered strokes.

The original study concluded:

In this Japanese population with a high baseline fracture risk, combined treatment with folate and vitamin B12 is safe and effective in reducing the risk of a hip fracture in elderly patients following stroke.

Here’s the notice for the study, “Effect of folate and mecobalamin on hip fractures in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

May 21st, 2015 at 9:30 am

March Madness? Harvard profs take shots at controversial studies, request retractions

with 7 comments

harvardIn the wake of Harvard’s gritty performance in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament — they were eliminated Saturday — a pair of faculty members at the Ivy League institution are calling foul on two controversial journal articles that have already been corrected.

Walter Willett, an oft-quoted Harvard nutrition expert, is calling for the retraction of an eyebrow-raising article earlier this month challenging the relative health benefits of fats from fish and vegetables over those in meat and butter.

The article, which appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, quickly came under fire and the researchers — from the University of Cambridge — ended up making several corrections. Despite the changes, the authors have stood by their work, according to a piece this week in Science.

But that hasn’t stopped Willett from urging a retraction. Per Science:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

March 25th, 2014 at 10:41 am

JAMA journal quietly replaces diabetes drug commentary after learning co-author is working for drugmaker

with 4 comments

jama int medJAMA Internal Medicine has replaced a commentary they published last week on the risks of two diabetes drugs, but you wouldn’t know the new version was a replacement.

One change is a correction about whether Byetta and Januvia carry so-called “black box” warnings from the FDA. The original sentence:

Because both drugs already carry US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warnings for the risk of pancreatitis, why is this study important?

It now reads: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

March 5th, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Posted in corrections,jama

JAMA’s first-ever Expression of Concern appears for hip protector study

with 9 comments

JAMA has issued its first-ever Expression of Concern over a 2007 study of hip protectors in the elderly that came under scrutiny from Federal regulators.

As the Boston Globe was first to report yesterday, the journal’s editor and executive deputy editor wrote in a notice published online: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 5th, 2012 at 7:02 am

Coming clean: A major figure in cardiology publishes a lengthy conflict of interest correction in JAMA

with 13 comments

Authors’ financial disclosures can be a thorny issue for scientific journals.  There’s often confusion over just what should be listed as a conflict of interest, and when relationships are revealed after papers are published, lack of disclosure sometimes leads to corrections.

For example, the Journal of Cell Science recently published this: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 7th, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Potti and colleagues retract 2008 JAMA paper

with 20 comments

Anil Potti‘s retraction count is now eight with the withdrawal of a 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Here’s the notice, which appeared online in JAMA sometime yesterday: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 7th, 2012 at 9:00 am