Retracted anesthesia study “was not conducted in reality”

coverWe’ve come across a new way to say the data in a paper are not reliable:

It has been found that the study represented in the article was not conducted in reality.

That’s from the retraction note for a paper that Anesthesia Essays and Researches has retracted for data falsification. The rest of the retraction note for “Intrathecal dextmedetomidine to reduce shoulder tip pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomies under spinal anesthesia” explains:

The corresponding author who designed the article, confirmed the same that other contributors unethically submitted the investigation. Therefore, on the grounds of falsification of data and unethical code of conduct, the article is being retracted.

The editor in chief  of the journal told us that the corresponding author received data from the other authors, only to discover later that he couldn’t find a record that proved the study had been done. The corresponding author, Joginder Pal Attri, who is affiliated with the Government Medical College in India, signed off on the retraction note. 

The abstract says the study involved 60 patients, who were divided into two groups each administered two different doses anesthesia. The paper has not been cited, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

We’ve reached out to Attri, and to last author Ranjana Khetarpal, affiliated with the Patiala Surgical Centre. We could not find contact info for first author Tarundeep Bhatia, whose LinkedIn page says he is a private practice anesthesiologist in India.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

3 thoughts on “Retracted anesthesia study “was not conducted in reality””

  1. There should be a better way for the journals to see if the potential draft of an article of a research has been actually done. What about, besides sending the draft to the journals, the database and the statistical analyses outputs are also sent?

  2. Spelling errors in the paper’s title should perhaps be a red flag! The drug is dexmedetomidine, not dextmedetomidine. Reading the abstract I am sure this is a paper I would have rejected had I been sent it to review by a reputable journal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.