A JAMA journal has retracted a paper on vaping it published two months ago after the researchers alerted the editors to “significant coding errors” and other problems with the work.
The article, “Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” was written by a group from China led by Zhao Liu, of the Department of Tobacco Control and Prevention of Respiratory Disease at China-Japan Friendship Hospital, in Beijing.
According to the researchers, the study found use of vapes was no worse than a prescription medication, and better than nicotine gum, at helping people quit smoking.
The paper received a significant amount of attention in the medical and lay press and on social media (full disclosure: Medscape, where Adam works, covered it).
Here’s the March 29 retraction notice for the paper, which originally appeared online in JAMA Internal Medicine January 29:
Unfortunately, we have found significant coding errors that are difficult to rectify. We also discovered discrepancies in the calculation process that cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the reported findings. Consequently, we believe it is necessary to retract the article to uphold the integrity of scientific research and maintain the trust of our readers and the medical community. All coauthors agree with this retraction. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may cause.
Liu told us in an email:
As we explained to the JAMA editors …, after this paper was published, we planned to conduct a secondary analysis. During this process, we found “109 participants, who should be in NRT group, were wrongly placed in the EC group, while another 109 participants, who should be in EC group, were wrongly placed in the NRT group. We immediately did the analysis, and found that the main results were changed”.
So we immediately wrote to the editors to explain this issue and requested to withdraw the paper.
Also, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other articles affected by these problems.
The article has been cited once, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Too bad climate modelers don’t have this level of humility.
Feels like a “doing the right thing” example here…
Yes, very much so. Kudos, I hope that I’ll be as forthcoming when I have published errors.