About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘cardiology retractions’ Category

Sampling the wrong part of the aorta sinks aneurysm paper

with one comment

plosoneA paper on an experimental treatment for abdominal aneurysms has been retracted after it was discovered samples had been taken from the wrong part of the aorta.

Here is the PLOS ONE notice for “Inhibition of Rho-Kinase by Fasudil Suppresses Formation and Progression of Experimental Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms:” Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Cat Ferguson

August 21, 2014 at 9:30 am

The tell-tale heart: Cardiovascular surgeons notch two retractions for plagiarism

with 5 comments

Sometimes plagiarism can be tricky to catch when an article has to be translated before publication.

That seems to be the case for two papers out of a hospital in Canakkale, Turkey, that discussed results of two different kinds of heart surgery.

Here’s the retraction notice for “The effects of 21 and 23 milimeter aortic valve prosthesis on hemodynamic performance and functional capacity in young adults,” in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences: Read the rest of this entry »

Panel says BMJ was right to not retract two disputed statin papers

with 4 comments

bmjA panel reviewing The BMJ‘s handling of two controversial statin papers said the journal didn’t err when it corrected, rather than retracted, the articles.

The articles — a research paper and a commentary – suggested that use of statins in people at low risk for cardiovascular disease could be doing far more harm than good. Both articles inaccurately cited a study that provided data important to their conclusions — an error pointed out vigorously by a British researcher, Rory Collins, who demanded that the journal pull the pieces.

In a letter to Godlee this spring, Collins wrote: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

August 1, 2014 at 7:01 pm

If only more retractions could be like this: Authors of cardiac stem cell paper show the way

with 6 comments

Researchers at Qingdao University have fully retracted a paper originally published in Molecular Medicine Reports with a clear, detailed outline of what went wrong and how they discovered the error.

Here’s the notice for “Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using skin fibroblasts from patients with myocardial infarction under feeder-free conditions:”

Read the rest of this entry »

Author squabble sinks cardiology papers

with one comment

Two papers on “novel techniques” have been retracted with what is unfortunately a very non-novel technique: an odd notice and silence when we asked for comment.

Here’s the explanation for retraction of “A novel approach to treat residual peridevice leakage after left-atrial appendage closure,” by Wunderlich N, Wilson N, and Sievert H: Read the rest of this entry »

Ninth retraction appears for cardiology researcher Matsubara

with 3 comments

matsubaraHiroaki Matsubara, a former Kyoto Prefectural University cardiology researcher who resigned last year following an investigation, has had another paper retracted, his ninth.

Here’s the notice from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology: Read the rest of this entry »

BMJ authors take back inaccurate statin safety statements

with 9 comments

bmjcover514Last October, the BMJ published a paper by a group of researchers from the United States and Canada questioning the use of statins in patients considered at low risk of cardiovascular disease.

The article has been cited eight times since then, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. It mentioned data from another study that reported a high rate of side effects in patients who used the drugs, between 18% and 20% — suggesting that those who received little or no benefit from the therapy could be more more likely to suffer harm than good.

But that citation turns out to have been flawed — prompting the journal to take the unusual step of removing those “statements” from the article and another it published about the issue that has been cited six times. And in an editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said she has asked a panel of experts to review the original paper to determine if it ought to be retracted completely: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

May 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,829 other followers