The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging has retracted a 2013 paper by a group of researchers from Italy. The reason: plagiarism.
The paper was titled “Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row computed tomography as compared with invasive coronary angiography in unselected, consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease,” and it came from scientists in Rome led by Francesco Pelliccia of the Department of Heart and Great Vessels at Sapienza University.
The paper has been cited five times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the abstract:
Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography (CT) scanners is feasible with high sensitivity and negative predictive value. The radiation exposure associated with this technique, however, is high and concerns in the widespread use of CT have arisen. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of coronary angiography using 320-row CT, which avoids exposure-intensive overscanning and overranging. We prospectively studied 118 unselected consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). All patients had 320-row CT within 1 week of ICA, which, together with quantitative analysis, served as the reference standard. Of the 65 out of 118 patients who were diagnosed as having CAD by ICA, 64 (98 %) were correctly identified at 320-row CT. Noteworthy, 320-row CT correctly detected CAD in 3 patients with atrial fibrillation and ruled out the disease in the other 8 patients. From 151 significant coronary stenoses detected on ICA, 137 (91 %) were correctly identified with 320-row CT. In the per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of 320-row CT were 98 and 91 %, respectively. In the per-vessel analysis, sensitivity and specificity of 320-row CT were 93 and 95 %, respectively. In the per segment analysis, sensitivity and specificity of 320-row CT were 91 and 99 %, respectively. Diameter stenosis determined with the use of CT showed good correlation with ICA (P < 0.001, R = 0.81) without significant underestimation or overestimation (-3.1 ± 24.4 %; P = 0.08). Comparison of CT with ICA revealed a significantly smaller effective radiation dose (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 6.5 ± 4.2 mSv; P < 0.05) and amount of contrast agent required (99 ± 51 vs. 65 ± 42 ml, P < 0.05) for 320 row CT. The present study in an unselected population including patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrates that 320-row CT may significantly reduce the radiation dose and amount of contrast agent required compared with ICA while maintaining a very high diagnostic accuracy.
Here’s the notice:
Diagnostic Accuracy of 320-row Computed Tomography as Compared with Invasive Coronary Arteriography in Unselected, Consecutive Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease by F. Pelliccia, V. Pasceri, A. Evangelista, A. Pergolini, F. Barilla, N. Viceconte, G. Tanzilli, M. Schiariti, C. Greco, C. Gaudio published online in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging on July 18, 2012, DOI 10.1007/s10554-012-0095-4 has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief as it contains large portions of text that have been duplicated from Noninvasive Coronary Angiography by 320-Row Computed Tomography with Lower Radiation Exposure and Maintained Diagnostic Accuracy. Comparison of Results with Cardiac Catheterization in a Head-to-Head Pilot Investigation by M. Dewey, E. Zimmermann, F. Deissenrieder, M. Laule, H.-P. Dübel, P. Schlattmann, F. Knebel, W. Rutsch and B. Hamm published online in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging on August 24, 2009, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.859280
A quick look at the abstract from the 2009 paper reveals similarities:
Noninvasive coronary angiography with the use of multislice tomography (CT) scanners is feasible with high sensitivity and negative predictive value; however, the radiation exposure associated with this technique is rather high. We evaluated coronary angiography using whole-heart 320-row CT, which avoids exposure-intensive overscanning and overranging.
But we haven’t done a side-by-side to look at the extent of the copying.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.
Springer, please quantify, exactly, the following: “it contains large portions of text that have been duplicated”. How is it that Springer is allowed to publish such retraction notices that actually make accusations, unquantified, and without a single shred of publically disclosed evidence? Why does Springer and every other publisher simply not provide the exact lists of text that were in the original, and in the copy? If the analysis was already done, then this would simply only require a copy-paste and conversion to a PDF file. Already 3 years down the line in this RW evolution, and we are still asking the publishers to do the exact same thing, again, and again. Why are these important requests falling on deaf ears?