Two detailed retraction notices correct the cardiology record

Two American College of Cardiology conference abstracts published earlier this year in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) have been retracted, one because the authors were actually measuring something other than what they reported, and the other because newer software invalidated the results.

Here’s the notice for “Worsening of Pre-Existing Valvulopathy With A New Obesity Drug Lorcaserin, A Selective 5-Hydroxytryptamine 2C Receptor Agonist: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials” by Hemang B. Panchal, Parthav Patel, Brijal Patel, Rakeshkumar Patel, and Henry Philip of East Tennessee State University:

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

In currently published abstract, it was mentioned that the authors measured “change in degree of pre-existing valvulopathy”. Actually, what they measured was “increase in valvular regurgitant grade from baseline” in a normal valve without any evidence of pre-existing FDA-defined valvulopathy. The studies included in their meta-analysis excluded patients with FDA-defined valvulopathy. Therefore, the outcome in their current abstract “increase in pre-existing AR” is actually “increase in aortic regurgitant grade from baseline” in patients without pre-existing FDA-defined aortic regurgitation. Similarly, the outcome in their current abstract “increase in pre-existing MR” is actually “increase in mitral regurgitant grade from baseline” in patients without pre-existing FDA-defined mitral regurgitation. Study data and statistical analysis is correct as it is. The results of their meta-analysis demonstrate that the increase in aortic regurgitant grade from baseline was significantly higher in patients on lorcaserin compared to placebo. The increase in mitral regurgitant grade from baseline was not different between both groups. The interpretation of rest of the outcomes is correct as it is.

And here’s the notice for “Does Intracoronary Adenosine Injection During Primary PCI Reduce Microvascular Obstruction in Patients Admitted With STEMI?” by Gemina Doolub and Colin Fortar of Oxford University:

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the author.

The prevalence of MVO was reduced in the adenosine-treated patients (45%) compared to 85% of control patients (P=0.0043). We found that the size of MVO in adenosine-treated patients was significantly reduced (0.35g) compared to 0.91 g in the control group (P=0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in TIMI flow and clinical outcomes after primary PCI.

Excel software was used to calculate the p-values. On recalculation using a newer version of the programme, the values are coming back different: Prevalence of MVO comparing adenosine to non-adenosine is now 0.15, therefore non-significant. Also the P-value for the mass of MVO in adenosine versus non-adenosine is 0.34, again non-significant.

The second notice seems like a good example of researchers doing the right thing, since they could have made the argument — as we’ve certainly seen — that the results were just fine when originally published.

Whatever the case, outgoing JACC editor-in-chief Anthony DeMaria wrote an editorial in last month’s issue about what should happen to abstracts whose findings change significantly by the time they’re published as full papers. The editorial, to which Marilyn Mann tipped us off, began:

An issue has recently arisen at the Journal that has implications well beyond a few specific papers referenced in Letters to the Editor. The core of the issue relates to differences in data for a given project between the published manuscript and prior versions in abstract form, or even oral presentations. Inquiries concerning several specific papers sought clarification of apparent discrepancies between such various presentations in order to fully understand the findings. However, the questions that were posed invariably raised the unspoken possibility of bias in the handling of the data published. Although seemingly at first blush a simple matter to address, the complexity and implications of this issue were sufficient to provoke considerable discussion and varied opinions at conferences of journal editors at the European Society of Cardiology meeting. It seems clear that it will be important to reach a general agreement on how to handle such matters in the future.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen