The BMJ has retracted a paper on a clinical trial of different methods of vascular access during cardiac arrest after an expert raised concerns about the randomization in the trial.
The study, published in July 2024, reports the results of a trial comparing intravenous and intraosseous vascular access for treating people who experienced cardiac arrest. It has been cited 29 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
A journal that last year corrected a paper claiming to show a homeopathic intervention improved quality of life and survival for people with advanced lung cancer has now retracted the article after the Committee on Publication Ethics got involved in the case.
The extensive correction and an accompanying editorial, published in September 2024 in The Oncologist, came two years after the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity asked the journal to retract the article due to concerns about manipulated data, we reported at the time.
The retraction notice, published November 24, acknowledged the watchdog agency’s retraction request. It also noted the previous corrections and expression of concern for the article, which originally appeared in October 2020.
Nature has retracted a paper on melanoma after an investigation by the journal found issues with data that rendered certain results statistically insignificant. A separate institutional investigation concluded misconduct wasn’t involved, the lead author says.
The research behind the article, published in April 2016, was conducted in the lab of Ashani Weeraratna, then at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. The paper has been cited 332 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The study investigated how the tumor microenvironment affected the spread of young versus aged cells.
An editorial investigation found some results in a figure were “no longer statistically significant, which affects the conclusions about therapy resistance,” according to the October 29 retraction notice. The inquiry also found “several errors in image and source data consistency,” as well as errors with the sample numbers given in the original study.
A paper on a clinical trial of metformin for the treatment of COVID-19 has been retracted nearly two years after the authors flagged data issues that resulted in an expression of concern.
The results of the Brazil-based TOGETHER trial, published in December 2021 in The Lancet Regional Health–Americas,found metformin was no better than placebo at improving health outcomes in people with COVID-19. The study has been cited 45 times, 25 of which came after the expression of concern was published, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Early observationalstudies in people with COVID-19 found positive effects of metformin, an oral medication most often used for type 2 diabetes, including reduced disease severity and mortality rates. But clinical trials, including the now-retracted study and a more recent randomized trial, found no differences in time to recovery or disease severity between patients who got metformin and those who received placebo.
The BMJ has issued an expression of concern for a paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure. The move comes after sleuths and scientists critiqued the “complete mismatch” between the study data and the article itself.
As we reported last week, the October 29 paper included results of a phase III clinical trial in Shiraz, Iran. Critics quickly began pointing out discrepancies in the data on PubPeer, including psychologist Nick Brown, who pointed out a “curious repeating pattern of records in the dataset” every 101 records.
According to the expression of concern published today, The BMJ acknowledged issues “apparent from the data that support the paper” including data irregularities, discrepancies in the age criteria and the ages of participants included in the study, and undeclared conflicts of interest.
A week after The BMJ published a highly publicized paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure, sleuths have unearthed what they are calling “serious” inconsistencies in the data.
The paper claims the phase III clinical trial published October 29 included over 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, and tested whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack.
The results were celebrated in a press release by the journal and appeared in several news outlets, with New Scientistcalling the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”
One of the papers in the analysis contained a figure (bottom) found to have overlap with other work by the same author (top). Both papers have been retracted. Annotated images: PubPeer
More than 200 papers on ways to prevent brain injury after a stroke contain problematic images, according to an analysis published today in PLOS Biology. Researchers found dozens of duplicated Western blots and reused images of tissues and cells purportedly showing different experimental conditions — both within a single paper and across separate publications.
As we reported last year, René Aquarius and Kim Wever, of the Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, first noticed these patterns in 2023 when they started working on a systematic review of animal studies in the field. They had wanted to identify promising interventions for preventing early brain injury following hemorrhagic stroke. Instead, their efforts turned into an audit of suspicious papers in their field.
Of the 608 studies they analyzed, more than 240, or 40 percent, contained problematic images. So far, 19 of those articles have been retracted and 55 corrected, mostly from the researchers’ efforts to alert journals and publishers about the issues. Almost 90 percent of the problematic papers had a corresponding author based in China, and many appeared in major journals such as Stroke, Brain Research and Molecular Neurobiology.
Clarivate has removed the mega-journal Cureus from its Master Journal List, according to the October update, released today.
The move means Cureus will no longer be indexed in Web of Science or receive an impact factor. As we have reported, it can also mean researchers are less likely to submit to the journal, given universities rely on such metrics to judge researchers’ work for tenure and promotion decisions.
Clarivate put indexing for the journal on hold last September for concerns about article quality, which the journal has been criticized for in the past.
A journal says it will retract a 2019 paper on an Alzheimer’s treatment after an institutional investigation found research misconduct, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The move comes four years after another investigation by the same university uncovered image duplication in a different paper by a similar group of authors.
The paper, published in Biological Psychiatry,describes the potential of an apoE antagonist for treatment in Alzheimer’s disease.
A 2019 news release by the University of South Florida, home to several of the researchers involved in the study, called the work “promising.” Lead author Darrell Sawmiller, an assistant professor at USF, said the study represented “the first time … we have direct evidence” apoE “acts as an essential molecule” in the mechanisms leading to Alzheimer’s.
After more than 20 years of criticism and calls for retraction, a journal has placed an expression of concern on a study of the antidepressant Paxil in teens that critics say has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth.
The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.
In 2012, Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion to settle civil and criminal charges that included “unlawful promotion” of the drug for adolescents, for whom the product was never approved, and allegations the company “participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article” — the JAACAP paper. A reanalysis in 2015 found the drug was “ineffective and unsafe” for the age group studied.
