Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘jama’ Category

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

No Potti retractions on the horizon from JAMA, NEJM

with 2 comments

With the third retraction of a paper by Anil Potti this weekend, plus details of various investigations dribbling out, we decided to check in with the world’s two leading medical journals about whether they planned to retract the papers of Potti’s they’d published.

JAMA published two papers by Potti and colleagues: One, “Gene Expression Signatures, Clinicopathological Features, and Individualized Therapy in Breast Cancer,” appeared in 2008. It has been cited 51 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and was the subject of two letters. In one, a correspondent expressed concerns about the lack of information in the study about Read the rest of this entry »