Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘dermatology retractions’ Category

Hey, that’s my case study: Another retraction after doctors claim rights to case write-up

with one comment

A group of researchers have retracted their 2016 case report about a rare dermatologic disorder in the wake of disputes about authorship and institutional approval.

The paper describes a young boy with Job’s Syndrome, in which patients experience painful, itchy and frequently disfiguring skin lesions, along with a constellation of other possible symptoms. The condition is extremely rare, occurring in less than one in 1 million births.

This isn’t the first time a journal has retracted a case study after another group of authors claimed ownership of the case. Earlier this year, we covered a retraction from a neuro-ophthalmology journal after the doctors who treated a patient suffering from a gruesome eye trauma took issue with the fact that radiologists had already published their diagnostic images as a case study.

According to the notice for this latest retraction:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

August 22nd, 2017 at 10:30 am

Authors retract tanning-UV radiation study for lacking approval

without comments

Researchers have agreed to pull a 2015 study exploring whether a plant extract can safeguard tanners from ultraviolet exposure after not obtaining formal approval from an ethics committee.

According to the first author, the problem lay in a misunderstanding – when they originally applied for approval six years ago, the researchers believed they didn’t need to go through a formal approval process, since the compound was commercially available without a prescription. Once they realized their mistake, they chose to retract the paper.

Here’s the retraction note for “Oral Polypodium leucomotos increases the anti-inflammatory and melanogenic responses of the skin to different modalities of sun exposures: a pilot study,” published in Photodermatology Photoimmunology & PhotomedicineRead the rest of this entry »

Crow’s feet filler study omitted pharma funding, gets retracted

without comments

JKMSA paper on a filler for eye wrinkles did not disclose that it was funded by a pharmaceutical company that produces the cosmetic.

The paper explicitly noted that the authors do not have any financial conflicts of interest, and that a government program supported the study. According to the journal, a reader alerted them to the conflict of interest.

The cooperate tie wasn’t a secret, though — one of the authors was listed as affiliated with the  company, Pharma Research Products, based in Korea.

Here’s the retraction notice for “A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Matched-Pairs, Active-Controlled Clinical Trial and Preclinical Animal Study to Compare the Durability, Efficacy and Safety between Polynucleotide Filler and Hyaluronic Acid Filler in the Correction of Crow’s Feet: A New Concept of Regenerative Filler:”

Read the rest of this entry »

Case report on cyst surgery sliced by journal for plagiarism

with 2 comments

Contemporary Clinical DentistryA case report that detailed the removal of a cyst from the side of a young woman’s face has been retracted for plagiarizing text from a similar case report published two years earlier.

Contemporary Clinical Dentistry posted the notice on July 31. Parts of the 2014 report were “directly copied” from a report published in 2012 by the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial PathologyNeither of the reports share authors in common.

The notice reads:

Read the rest of this entry »

Skin study retracted twice in triple publication rub

with one comment

Indian Journal of DermatologyThe Indian Journal of Dermatology has retracted a paper on the potential genetic markers of psoriasis that had already been retracted once for redundant publication.

The journal is chalking it up to an “administrative error” that caused it to publish a paper that had already appeared in two other outlets.

According to one of the authors, the “most junior” author published the paper in 2008 in the The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine “without informing other authors.”

When first author Ahmad Settin and the other authors sent it to the IJD in 2009, they were told its small sample size made it a letter to the editor; they decided to “decline submission” and send it to to Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica, where it was published later that year. When Acta discovered the first version, it retracted the paper in 2013.

Meanwhile, editors at the IJD ended up posting the article, “Association of cytokine gene polymorphisms with psoriasis in cases from the Nile Delta of Egypt,” in 2011 without telling the authors. So they, too, now have to retract it:

Read the rest of this entry »

You can’t make this stuff up: Plagiarism guideline paper retracted for…plagiarism

with 8 comments

ijdermThis could be an April Fools’ joke. But it isn’t.

In what can only be described as an ironic twist, the Indian Journal of Dermatology is retracting a paper that presents guidelines on plagiarism for…wait for it…

Plagiarism.

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Duplicate submission forces retraction of derm laser paper

without comments

jclasertherThe Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy has retracted a 2014 paper by a group of South Korean researchers after determining that the authors had doubled up on their publishing odds by submitting the manuscript to a competing journal.

The article was titled “A comparative study of low-fluence 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser with or without chemical peeling using Jessner’s solution in melasma patients,” and it purported to find that:

This study suggests Jessner’s peel is a safe and effective method in the early course of treatment for melasma when combined with low-fluence 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser.

Read the rest of this entry »

Journal expresses concerns over “possible data irregularities” in paper from Army medical center docs

with 2 comments

JAADThe Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology has issued an expression of concern about a 2012 article reporting the experience of military burn unit treating a rare ailment called toxic epidermal necrolysis.

According to the notice, which is behind a paywall (for shame!), the paper appears to have overstated the number of cases the hospital itself has treated of the life-threatening condition: Read the rest of this entry »

Alleged Medicare cheat loses paper for data mix-up

without comments

A Boston doctor indicted on charges of Medicare fraud in 2007 has had a paper relating to the case retracted this month.

Abdul Razzaque Ahmed was considered something of a miracle worker by his patients, treating two rare and disfiguring skin conditions called pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris. He used more powerful medicines than the typical course of treatment, including a drug normally used to treat cancer.

The initial indictment stated that Ahmed mixed blood samples to falsely show a “dual diagnosis” of both diseases, and prove to Medicare that they required the more rigorous (and expensive) treatment. It also alleged that he profited massively from the government pay-outs. He was convicted of obstruction in 2007; the other charges were dropped when he agreed to forfeit assets worth $2.9 million.

Now, a 2001 paper by Ahmed, which claimed fifteen patients had a dual diagnosis, has been retracted because the samples were all mixed. Here is the retraction notice from Clinical Immunology: Read the rest of this entry »

Too much skin in the game, as duplications force retraction of psoriasis paper

with 3 comments

actadermA group of dermatology researchers from Egypt who passed around a psoriasis paper like a bottle of sunscreen at the beach have been burned (sorry) by a journal that caught them in the act.

Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica is retracting the 2009 article “Association of cytokine gene polymorphisms with psoriasis in cases from the Nile Delta of Egypt” after discovering that they were far from the first publication to print the paper.

Here’s the retraction notice (it’s a pdf): Read the rest of this entry »