Category: clinical study retractions

Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 12.29.58 PM

The authors of a paper about the benefits of an antioxidant found in blueberries known as pterostilbene have retracted it after their subsequent research suggested the antioxidant might actually be harmful.

The paper presented evidence that the antioxidant might help rats after heart attack, in part by inhibiting cell death (apoptosis). But according to the retraction note, more work

found that pterostilbene might induce apoptosis in the heart and can be harmful, and we are now focusing on the phenomenon.

The rest of the retraction note for “Pterostilbene attenuates inflammation in rat heart subjected to ischemia-reperfusion: role of TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway,” published in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, suggests that the authors would consider republishing their findings if they became more confident in the data:

Continue reading Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

F1.mediumScience magazine has issued an expression of concern for a paper on the discovery of a new immune-boosting protein. The paper’s findings, which received some press coverage when they came out last spring, are now under investigation by Imperial College London.

The expression of concern follows a correction noting a Western blot mix-up. Science Editor in Chief Marcia McNutt told us last month that the mistake resulted from “carelessness” on the part of the authors. But now, an investigation at Imperial College London — where Philip Ashton-Rickardt led the research — is formally looking into the findings.

That investigation is ongoing, according to the expression of concern (signed by McNutt):

Continue reading Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

plos1A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database.

The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because they “did not have permission” from the laboratory “to publish the data in their current form.” The data — anonymized — are now available at PubMLST.

Here’s the retraction notice, published on October 16: Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 5.42.55 PM

PLOS ONE has quickly corrected an October analysis of what children in Malaysia eat for breakfast, after the study neglected to note it benefited from mistakenly noted an unrestricted research grant from cereal companies supported author salaries. The grant supported the salaries of research assistants, according to the correction note.

Per the authors’ request, the journal has noted that the study received financial support from Nestlé R&D Center in Singapore and Cereal Partners Worldwide, a collaboration between General Mills Inc. and Nestlé S.A., with the goal of selling cereal outside the US and Canada. These funders provided “salaries for research assistants” for the MyBreakfast study, on which the analysis is based, according to the note.

The paper includes authors affiliated with Nestlé and Cereal Partners Worldwide, as well as a detailed “Competing interests” section, which outlines the relationships with these companies.

The correction note explains the information that should have appeared in the funding section of the article:

Continue reading Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

“Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

company-info-big

Nature Publishing Group is retracting three papers today, after an investigation found evidence the peer-review process had been compromised.

The publisher issued a statement saying they had notified corresponding authors and institutions associated with the three papers, which were all published last year in the journals Cancer Gene Therapy and Spinal Cord. 

Here’s the note that’s going on each of the papers, (they’re the same, except for the publication date):

Continue reading “Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

Fifth retraction for Wayne State researcher who fudged figures

teresita
Teresita L. Briones

Another retraction has appeared for Teresita Briones, who used to study neuroscience at Wayne State University — the final of five papers flagged by the Office of Research Integrity for containing falsified data.

According to the ORI notice published in May, Briones “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data.” This latest paper to be retracted, which looks at the role of specific receptor in chronic inflammation of nervous tissue in rats, has two figures that “were duplicated, reused and falsely relabelled, and claimed to represent different experiments,” according to the retraction note.

The retraction note for “Chronic neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment following transient global cerebral ischemia: role of fractalkine/CX3CR1 signaling,” published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, specifies the problematic figures:

Continue reading Fifth retraction for Wayne State researcher who fudged figures

“The peer review process was compromised”: Inflammation drug paper pulled

12

A paper that screened for antibodies that target TNFα, a major source of inflammation, has been retraction after an investigation revealed the peer-review process may have been compromised.

We’ve seen the peer review process “compromised” in a handful of ways — from a mathematician who oversaw the process on several of his own papers, to some 250 papers subject to outright fake peer review. The note for this paper, published in Amino Acids, doesn’t go into details, so we can only wonder what happened in this particular case.

Here’s the note for “Structure‑based development and optimization of therapy antibody drugs against TNFα:”

Continue reading “The peer review process was compromised”: Inflammation drug paper pulled

PLOS ONE issues editor’s note over controversial chronic fatigue syndrome research

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 11.42.08 PM

After a request for the original data was denied, PLOS ONE editors have flagged a 2012 sub analysis of a controversial clinical trial on chronic fatigue syndrome with an editor’s note.

The editor’s note — which reads like an Expression of Concern — reiterates the journal’s policy that authors make data and materials available upon request, and notes that staff are following up on “concerns” raised about the study.

There have been numerous requests for data from the “PACE” trial, as the clinical trial is known, which the authors say they have refused in order to protect patient confidentiality. On November 13, James Coyne, a psychologist at the University Medical Center, Groningen, submitted a request for the data from the PLOS ONE paper to King’s College London, where some of the authors were based. According to Coyne’s WordPress blog (he also has a blog hosted by PLOS), the journal asked him to let them know if he “had any difficulties obtaining the data.” He did — KCL denied the request last Friday (the whole letter is worth reading):

The university considers that there is a lack of value or serious purpose to your request. The university also considers that there is improper motive behind the request. The university considers that this request has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff.

Last author Peter White at Queen Mary University of London, UK, told us the journal had not asked them to release the data, but he would work with PLOS to address any questions:

We understand PLOS One are following up concerns expressed about the article, according to their internal processes. We will be happy to work with them to address any queries they might have regarding the research.

Here’s the editor’s note for “Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” in full:

Continue reading PLOS ONE issues editor’s note over controversial chronic fatigue syndrome research

Authors retract abstract following misconduct by diabetes biotech

1Earlier this year, authors retracted a meeting abstract about a diabetes drug, following the revelation that the biotech that funded the trial committed misconduct.

The retraction was initiated by corresponding author Itamar Raz, at Hadassah Medical Center in Israel. The journal didn’t receive a response from any co-authors who were affiliated with the biotech company, Andromeda, so they were not included in the retraction process.

A few months after Hyperion Therapeutics acquired Andromeda’s diabetes drug DiaPep277, Hyperion announced it had evidence that some employees of Andromeda had “engaged in serious misconduct,” such as using un-blinded data and manipulating the analyses. Two relevant studies on the drug, designed to block the immune response that leads to type 1 diabetes, were retracted last year.

Here’s the retraction note for the abstract “Abstracts of the 50th Annual Meeting of the EASD, Vienna 2014. ‘Evaluation of DiaPep277® treatment in type 1 diabetes by integrated analysis,’” published in the May issue of the journal:

Continue reading Authors retract abstract following misconduct by diabetes biotech

7th retraction for heart researcher who faked patient records

1.coverAnna Ahimastos, a heart researcher who faked patient records, has notched her 7th retraction.

One more paper is expected to be retracted, according to a spokesperson from her former institution, the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute in Australia.

As with the other retractions, the 2005 paper in Hypertension — about how the hypertension drug ramipril may help alleviate cardiovascular disease — is being pulled after Ahimastos admitted to scientific misconduct. She asserts the data remain valid, and has not signed the retraction notice.

The Hypertension paper has been cited 63 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the retraction note in full (the language will be familiar to readers who have been following this case):

Continue reading 7th retraction for heart researcher who faked patient records