Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘Spine’ Category

You’ve been dupe’d: Nice data — let’s see them again

without comments

As we’ve said before, with hundreds of retractions per year, there are simply too many for us to cover individually.

So from time to time we’ll compile a list of retractions that appeared relatively straightforward, just for record-keeping purposes.

Often, these seemingly straightforward retractions involve duplications, in which authors — accidentally or on purpose — republish their own work elsewhere.

Sometimes journals and authors blame this event on “poor communication,” our first example notes:

Read the rest of this entry »

Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t

without comments

spine-coverThe authors of a study about spinal fusion surgery have retracted it after realizing the cohort study was described as a prospective, randomized trial

The last author told us he believed the incorrect wording was added to the paper — and the title — by accident. Even though he said the journal Spine suggested correcting it, the authors chose to retract the paper entirely.

The abstract of the study describes the design as a:

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

But according to the retraction notice for “Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate versus rhBMP-2 in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,” the abstract was not accurate:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Shannon Palus

June 14th, 2016 at 9:30 am