Category: clinical study retractions

Anti-fish oil researcher netted two more retractions

Screen Shot 2015-08-17 at 10.11.25 AM
Brian Peskin

Earlier this year, Food and Nutrition Sciences retracted two papers from an author who criticized highly popular fish oil supplements after an additional round of peer review concluded his papers present a “biased interpretation,” among other issues.

Last year, Brian Peskin lost a paper for an “undeclared competing interest” — namely, that he held patents and directed a company associated with essential fatty acids.

In place of fish oil, Peskin touts plant-based supplements for treating cardiovascular disease. From the abstract of the freshly-retracted “Why Fish Oil Fails to Prevent or Improve CVD: A 21st Century Analysis,” he claims that Parent Essential Oils (PEOs) — such as alpha-linolenic acid, which can be converted into the EPA and DHA found in fish oil — “fulfill fish oil’s failed promise”: Continue reading Anti-fish oil researcher netted two more retractions

Retraction no. 8 (and a 1/2) hits former Duke researcher Erin Potts-Kant

American Journal of Physiology - Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologyAnother retraction and a correction that retracts two figures — ie, a partial retraction — have been posted for Duke University lung researchers, Erin Potts-Kant and Michael Foster.

These latest notices move the count up to 8.5 retractions for Potts-Kant and 7.5 for Foster (counting the partial retraction as 1/2), along with the correction for both. In both cases and in a familiar note from previous retractions, authors found “potential discrepancies” between two sets of data (partial retraction) and study figures that weren’t “reliable” (retraction).

The retraction comes after the authors discovered problems with three of the study figures. In the corrected paper, the authors were able to validate some of their findings after repeating the experiments, but retracted two of the study figures that they were “unable to verify.”

Continue reading Retraction no. 8 (and a 1/2) hits former Duke researcher Erin Potts-Kant

Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance

home_cover (1)A journal has published a corrected version of a widely reported study linking severe illness and divorce rates after it was retracted in July due to a small coding error.

The original, headline-spawning conclusion was that the risk of divorce in a heterosexual marriage increases when the wife falls ill, but not the husband. The revised results — published again in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, along with lengthy explanations from the authors and editors — are more nuanced: Gender only significantly correlates with divorce rate in the case of heart disease.

The authors’ note, from Iowa State’s Amelia Karraker and Kenzie Latham, at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, explains that the coding error led them to over-estimate how many marriages ended in divorce:

Continue reading Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance

How long does it take to retract a paper? A look at the Eric Poehlman record

oriweb_logoIn 2005, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity announced that obesity researcher Eric Poehlman had committed misconduct in 10 published papers. You might think that all of those ten articles would have been retracted a decade later.

You’d be wrong. Only six of them have. Here’s what Elizabeth Wager (a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization) found when she went looking through the record. Continue reading How long does it take to retract a paper? A look at the Eric Poehlman record

Cancer drug paper nulled by “statistical errors”

12032Researchers have pulled a paper about a drug used to treat pancreatic tumors due to “statistical errors.”

The 2014 paper suggested a drug that appears to treat pancreatic tumors also works in Chinese patients. We’re not exactly sure what went wrong with “A randomized phase II study of everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Chinese patients,” however, because the retraction note is not particularly helpful. Here’s the whole thing, published in Medical Oncology: Continue reading Cancer drug paper nulled by “statistical errors”

Skin study retracted twice in triple publication rub

Indian Journal of DermatologyThe Indian Journal of Dermatology has retracted a paper on the potential genetic markers of psoriasis that had already been retracted once for redundant publication.

The journal is chalking it up to an “administrative error” that caused it to publish a paper that had already appeared in two other outlets.

According to one of the authors, the “most junior” author published the paper in 2008 in the The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine “without informing other authors.”

When first author Ahmad Settin and the other authors sent it to the IJD in 2009, they were told its small sample size made it a letter to the editor; they decided to “decline submission” and send it to to Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica, where it was published later that year. When Acta discovered the first version, it retracted the paper in 2013.

Meanwhile, editors at the IJD ended up posting the article, “Association of cytokine gene polymorphisms with psoriasis in cases from the Nile Delta of Egypt,” in 2011 without telling the authors. So they, too, now have to retract it:

Continue reading Skin study retracted twice in triple publication rub

“Whoops.” Paper cites retracted gay canvassing paper — but blame me, says journal editor

arch sex behavBy now, most Retraction Watch readers are likely familiar with the retraction in May of a much-ballyhooed study in Science on whether gay canvassers could persuade people to agree with same-sex marriage. It turns out that before that retraction appeared, a different study that cited the Science paper made its way online.

Kenneth Zucker, the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the study online in February, 2015, decided he had some ‘splaining to do. The article has now been published as the lead paper in the current issue of the journal, which also includes a comment from Zucker. He explains what happened: Continue reading “Whoops.” Paper cites retracted gay canvassing paper — but blame me, says journal editor

Three retractions for geriatric medicine researcher

Screen Shot 2015-08-20 at 11.51.11 AMA trio of papers on health issues in elderly patients, all sharing an author, have been retracted from Geriatrics & Gerontology International. 

The reasons for the retractions range from expired kits, an “unattributed overlap” with another paper, “authorship issues,” and issues over sample sizes.

Tomader Taha Abdel Rahman, a researcher at Ain Shams University in Cairo, is the first author on two of the papers, and second author on the third.

Here’s the retraction note for a paper that showed elderly adults with chronic hepatitis C are at risk of having cognitive issues:

Continue reading Three retractions for geriatric medicine researcher

Retraction of grizzly bear-diabetes study follows departure of Amgen scientist for data manipulation

cov150h
The retracted paper made the cover of the August 2014 issue of the journal.

A study that looked to hibernating bears to understand the mechanisms behind diabetes has been retracted because an author based at the biotech company Amgen “manipulated specific experimental data” in two figures.

According to the The Wall Street Journal, Amgen discovered the manipulation while reviewing the data following publication of the paper,”Grizzly bears exhibit augmented insulin sensitivity while obese prior to a reversible insulin resistance during hibernation.” Published in Cell Metabolism last year, the paper has been cited 8 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

A press release from the journal last year — coverage in Science and Nature followed — explained the purpose of the study:

Continue reading Retraction of grizzly bear-diabetes study follows departure of Amgen scientist for data manipulation

Authors’ pharma ties cause Cochrane to withdraw two diabetes reviews

Cochrane_LogoThe Cochrane Library has withdrawn two reviews evaluating the effectiveness of diabetes treatments because some of the papers’ authors work with pharmaceutical companies.

Bianca Hemmingsen, first author on both reviews, told us the Cochrane Library asked the authors to remove the researchers with ties to pharma, but after one “refused to withdraw,” both papers were pulled entirely.

However, Hemmingsen insists that their employment had no impact on either paper.

This breaks the typical mold for Cochrane withdrawals, which are usually only pulled to indicate updates and show that older reviews no longer represent the best evidence.

Continue reading Authors’ pharma ties cause Cochrane to withdraw two diabetes reviews