Archive for the ‘neurology’ Category
A new analysis of more than 30 clinical trials co-authored by a bone researcher based in Japan is casting doubt on the legitimacy of the findings.
Yoshihiro Sato, based at Mitate Hospital, has already retracted 12 papers, for reasons ranging from data problems, to including co-authors without their consent, to self-plagiarism. Most of these retracted papers are included in the analysis in the journal Neurology, which concluded that Sato’s 33 randomized clinical trials exhibited patterns that suggest systematic problems with the results.
Other researchers have used similar approaches to analyze a researcher’s body of work — notably, when John Carlisle applied statistical tools to uncover problems in the research of notorious fraudster Yoshitaka Fujii, and Uri Simonsohn, who sniffed out problems with the work of social psychologist Dirk Smeesters.
A genetics researcher included falsified data in two published papers, according to a report by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) released today.
At the time of the misconduct, Andrew Cullinane was a postdoctoral fellow in the Medical Genetics Branch at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). According to his LinkedIn page, he is now an assistant professor at Howard University in Washington D.C. The university’s College of Medicine lists him as an assistant professor in the Basic Sciences/Anatomy department.
As today’s notice in the Federal Register reports, Cullinane Read the rest of this entry »
We’ve previously reported on six retractions of papers co-authored by Yoshihiro Sato, who is based at Mitate Hospital in Japan, including one in JAMA. Retractions stemmed from the use of “honorary” co-authors, as well as concerns over the data. One paper seemed to be the victim of “extensive self-plagiarism.”
Sato, who is the first and corresponding author of all ten retractions (including the letter), accepted full responsibility of the newly retracted publications, noting that none of the co-authors took part in any misconduct.
The journal Neurology has issued an expression of concern for a paper linking shingles and stroke, which got press attention when it was published.
The journal’s note refers to “errors of data presentation,” which author Judith Breuer more narrowly defined as mistakes during transcription of a table. It’s unclear whether the results themselves – that herpes zoster, the virus that causes shingles, is a risk factor for stroke and other vascular problems – are being called into question.
A Korean stem cell journal has retracted a paper on a controversial Italian treatment that involves harvesting stem cells from bone marrow and injecting them back into the patient.
“Stamina therapy” has been pitched as a treatment for everything from Parkinson’s disease to coma, based on a U.S. patent application filed in 2010. The Italian government pledged about $3.9 million in 2013 to support a clinical trial for stamina therapy. More than 100 people signed up for the trials, with a wide range of neurological ailments; half were children.
However, allegations of fraud led to a criminal investigation into the Stamina Foundation’s leader, psychologist David Vannoni, as well as 17 other members of the organization. Read the rest of this entry »
The article, “Structural and functional brain connectivity in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia,” came from the lab of John C. van Swieten, of Erasmus University in The Netherlands. According to the abstract of the article: Read the rest of this entry »
The journal Neurology has issued an Expression of Concern over recommendations it published earlier this year regarding the treatment of multiple sclerosis.
The journal’s website received multiple comments from clinicians expressing their own concern about the flawed recommendation, which was published as part of a paper titled “The American Academy of Neurology’s Top Five Choosing Wisely recommendations.” The problematic item was number 4: Read the rest of this entry »
The ‘Goldilocks’ retraction? Revealing differences in how several neurology journals handled related problems
Four neurology journals have retracted articles by a Japanese researcher who admitted to having made “mistakes” in his handling of data. Although the cases are related, the way the journals have handled the notices is startlingly different. One chose to say nothing, one chose to say little, while two went for full — or at least, approximately that — disclosure.
Guess which ones we like the most? Read the rest of this entry »
There’s a retraction in the issue of Neurology published this week. In a nutshell, a group of researchers had reported earlier this year that they had identified a genetic mutation potentially responsible for a rare neurological disorder called the filamin myopathy. But when another group tried to replicate those results, they found that the original tests were probably contaminated by a “pseudogene.”
In a letter from the second group:
Kono et al reported the effects of a novel c.8107del mutation in the filamin C gene (FLNC). We reviewed their results and concluded that the reported mutation was mistaken identity.
In a response, the authors thank the group and conclude: Read the rest of this entry »
It might not be a first – although we can’t find another example — but a mental health journal has reinstated an article it retracted four years ago.
The retracted retraction notice appears in the August issue of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, a BMJ title, and refers to a 2005 article describing an alarming case of treatment-related emotional problems in a patient with cluster headaches.
These headaches, which often strike behind the eyes, are akin to migraines and have been dubbed “suicide headaches” because they are so intensely painful that many sufferers have said that death would be a preferable fate. (Think: “It beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.”)
The patient had been taking high doses of the drug methysergide and began to experience Read the rest of this entry »