Category: clinical study retractions

Diabetes researcher sues journal to prevent retractions of papers cited more than 600 times

Mario Saad, via unicamp.br
Mario Saad, via unicamp.br

Mario A. Saad, who last year retracted a paper for plagiarism, is now suing the American Diabetes Association over four expressions of concern in its flagship journal, Diabetes.

As reported in the Boston Business Journal, Saad’s lawsuit claims that his institution, the State University of Campinas, investigated two articles at the journal’s behest. The American Diabetes Association was unhappy with the results, and asked the school to reopen the investigation, including two additional papers.

Saad is suing to prevent the journal from retracting the papers, in addition to monetary compensation.

Continue reading Diabetes researcher sues journal to prevent retractions of papers cited more than 600 times

Heart study bleeds into three papers, one retracted and one withdrawn

janWith the increasingly hectic pace of modern life, everybody is always on the look out for time-saving tricks and tips.

Scientists at the National University of Singapore and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University certainly found one, but we really can’t recommend it: doing one randomized controlled trial (RCT) with several outcomes, and publishing them as three separate 2014 papers with “considerable overlap.”

So far, one paper has been retracted, and another withdrawn.

Continue reading Heart study bleeds into three papers, one retracted and one withdrawn

He shoots, he…misses! Soccer injury paper gets red card for data errors

jsmsThe authors of a 2014 paper on soccer injuries have forfeited their publication after revealing that the foundation of the work was based on faulty data. (Look, we could have written about letting air out of balls, yadda yadda, but the Super Bowl has come and gone.)

The article, which appeared in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, was written by a group in Denmark and Qatar led by Cristiano Eirale, a sports medicine researcher at the Aspetar-Qatar Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, in Doha. It showed goalies had a lower rate of injuries during training than field players.

Trouble was, someone called a foul.

Continue reading He shoots, he…misses! Soccer injury paper gets red card for data errors

A unicorn: Journal publishes euphemism-free plagiarism notice

af journ biomed researchIt’s always nice when a journal editor actually uses words the way they’re meant to be used instead of employing euphemisms.

In 2009, the African Journal of Biomedical Research published an article on the differences in heart rates when people ran backwards versus forwards. Unfortunately, five years later, the journal found out the paper was a reproduction of a 1994 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise paper. They contacted the authors and, when there was no response, published a straightforward and fairly detailed retraction.

According to managing editor Babafemi Olaleye, the original paper was received and handled by the founding editor of the journal. In April 2014, the managing editor of Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise emailed the journal, stating that the paper had been copied wholesale.

Here’s the notice for “Comparison of Cardio-Pulmonary Responses to Forward and Backward Walking and Running”: Continue reading A unicorn: Journal publishes euphemism-free plagiarism notice

“Genuine error” sees expression of concern for vision loss paper

elsevierA duplicated figure has resulted in an expression of concern for a paper in the American Journal of Pathology on a treatment for ocular neovascularization, which causes vision loss.

According to the notice, the corresponding author, David Shima, now at University College London, brought his concern to the journal. He called it a “genuine error” and stated that all the findings had been reproduced.

Unfortunately, Shima claimed the original data are missing, because the institution that owned the information — Eyetech Research Center — has “since gone through several acquisitions.”

Ocular neovascularization occurs when growth signals in the eye stimulate the creation of many new blood vessels. Over time these blood vessels break, causing bleeding and scarring that limits vision. This is called “wet” macular degeneration.

The scientists found that giving patients drugs to limit two different growth factors at the same time is more effective than one at stopping the progression of AMD. This combination method is in stage three clinical trials, though with different drugs than the authors used here.

The paper, published in 2006, has been cited 130 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the EoC for “Inhibition of Platelet-Derived Growth Factor B Signaling Enhances the Efficacy of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Multiple Models of Ocular Neovascularization”:

Continue reading “Genuine error” sees expression of concern for vision loss paper

Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions

Child with measles, via Wikipedia/CDC
Child with measles, via Wikipedia/CDC

As Retraction Watch readers know, public health officials are concerned about a U.S. measles outbreak. As The New York Times notes:

The United States has already had more cases of measles in the first month of 2015 than the number that is typically diagnosed in a full year. This follows a year in which the number of cases was several times more than the average since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated in the United States.

As Retraction Watch readers also know, the discredited autism-vaccines link, fears of which lead some parents to skip their kids’ vaccations, rears its ugly head periodically. Much of the related anti-vaccine movement can be tied to a 1998 study in the Lancet by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues that was eventually retracted in 2010: Continue reading Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions

After 25 years, AIDS fraud comes back swinging

Screen Shot 2015-01-30 at 5.20.32 PMHenk Buck, a Dutch chemist who once claimed he could cure AIDS, is back, publishing a long explanation of why he was right all along in a journal by what Jeffrey Beall calls a possible predatory publisher.

Buck spent a few months in 1990 as a hero. In April of that year, he and his team published a paper in Science that claimed they could prevent HIV from infecting human cells. Buck went on a press blitz, appearing on TV and the radio claiming that there would be a treatment for AIDS “in a few years,” according to an 1991 comment published in Science. 

Like many things that sound too good to be true, the AIDS cure was a fraud. Continue reading After 25 years, AIDS fraud comes back swinging

Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

ajicThe American Journal of Infection Control has issued an expression of concern for a paper looking at ways to reduce infections associated with central venous catheters, or central lines.

The catheters are placed directly into a large vein and end close to the heart, allowing long-term access for medication or fluid administration. According to the CDC, infections associated with central lines cause thousands of deaths and cost billions of dollars every year.

Here’s the abstract for “Comparison of central line-associated bloodstream infection rates when changing to a zero fluid displacement intravenous needleless connector in acute care settings“: Continue reading Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice

logo_lancetOne of the papers from a massive heart disease study in China, published in the Lancet, has been retracted and republished after the authors noticed a statistical error.

The article, by authors from Peking Union Medical College in China, Yale University, and elsewhere, presented the results of the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study, part of a national initiative to study and improve care for cardiac problems. After being posted online on June 24, 2014, the authors noticed that they’d incorrectly weighed one of the cities in their calculations, which threw off a number of national estimates.

After the corrections were made, the paper was peer-reviewed again, and reviewers stated that despite the mistakes, the original conclusions were sound.

Today is a banner day on Retraction Watch: This is our second excellent example of transparency in 24 hours, and therefore the second entry in our “doing the right thing” category. An editorial lays out exactly what happened, including a timeline, allowing scientists to feel confident they’re basing the next research step on solid and accurate data. (We also appreciate the hat tip to the Committee on Publication Ethics retraction guidelines, which we often send out to editors of bad notices as a gentle reminder.)

Here’s the notice for “ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China from 2001 to 2011 (the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study): a retrospective analysis of hospital data”: Continue reading Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice

Authors issue a model retraction for mistaken bacterial identity

jcmA group in the Netherlands has retracted a case study on the diarrheal pathogen Campylobacter jejuni, commonly found in animal feces, after repeated tests showed the bacteria was actually C. fetus, which also causes spontaneous abortion in cows and sheep.

The 46-year-old man who had previously had an aortic valve replacement came to the doctors with endocarditis, an inflammation of the heart. Initial tests showed that it was due to a C. jejuni infection, which often lives in chickens, wombats, kangaroos, and sheep.

Only a few cases of endocarditis caused by C. jejuni had ever been reported. Unfortunately, a thorough followup made it clear that a different pathogen was at play. Let’s consider this retraction a model for all others in its clarity and thoroughness.

Take it away, notice for “Aortic Homograft Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter jejuni“: Continue reading Authors issue a model retraction for mistaken bacterial identity