Retractions in the medical literature: How can patients be protected from risk?

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 228-232

  Steen, R Grant ^a  

^a MediCC Medical Communications Consultants   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ETHICS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RISK; RISK MANAGEMENT; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PATIENTS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; RISK; RISK MANAGEMENT; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84860539716     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100184     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: who is responsible for scientific integrity? AMWA J 2011;26:2-7.
2. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 2011;37:113-17.
3. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 2011;37:249-53.
4. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics 2011;37:688-92.
5. Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, et al. Combination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:117-24.
6. Anon. Retractiondcombination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:1226.
7. Kunz R, Friedrich C, Wolbers M, et al. Meta-analysis: effect of monotherapy and combination therapy with inhibitors of the renin angiotensin system on proteinuria in renal disease. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:30-48.
8. Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, et al. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547-59.
9. Mann JF, Schmieder RE, McQueen M, et al. Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:547-53.
10. Wong J, Molyneaux L, Constantino M, et al. Beyond ONTARGET: angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin II receptor blockade in combination, a lesser evil in some? Diabetes Obes Metab 2010;12:1072-8.
11. Lakhdar R, Al-Mallah MH, Lanfear DE. Safety and tolerability of angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor versus the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Card Fail 2008;14:181-8.
12. McAlister FA, Zhang J, Tonelli M, et al. The safety of combining angiotensinconverting-enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin-receptor blockers in elderly patients: a population-based longitudinal analysis. CMAJ 2011;183:655-62.
13. Naik G. Mistakes in scientific studies surge. Wall St J 10 August 2011: A1.
14. Steen RG. Misinformation in the medical literature: what role do error and fraud play? J Med Ethics 2011;37:498-503.
15. Reinhart K, Takala J. Hydroxyethyl starches: what do we still know? Anesth Analg 2011;112:507-11.
16. Boldt J, Suttner S, Brosch C, et al. Cardiopulmonary bypass priming using a high dose of a balanced hydroxyethyl starch versus an albumin-based priming strategy. Anesth Analg 2009;109:1752-62.
17. Shafer SL. Notice of retraction. Anesth Analg 2010;111:1567.
18. Shafer SL. Editor's note: notices of retraction. Anesth Analg 2011;112:1.
19. Agres T. After retractions in Boldt case, experts ponder the fate of Hetastarch. Anesthes News 2011;37:5.
20. Perel P, Roberts I. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(3):CD000567.
21. Davidson IJ. Renal impact of fluid management with colloids: a comparative review. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006;23:721-38.
22. Zarychanski R, Turgeon AF, Fergusson DA, et al. Renal outcomes and mortality following hydroxyethyl starch resuscitation of critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Open Med 2009;3: e196-209.
23. Hartog CS, Kohl M, Reinhart K. A systematic review of third-generation hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130/0.4) in resuscitation: safety not adequately addressed. Anesth Analg 2011;112:635-45.
24. Torgersen C, Dunser MW, Schmittinger CA, et al. Current approach to haemodynamic management of septic shock patients in European intensive care units: a cross-sectional, self-reported questionnaire-based survey. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28:284-90.
25. Coultas D. Ethical considerations in the interpretation and communication of clinical trial results. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2007;4:194-9.
26. Reynolds SM. ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992-2002. Clin Trials 2004;1:509-16.
27. Chan AW. Bias, spin and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med 2008;5:1533-5.
28. Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, et al. Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem? Ann Int Med 2002;136:888-95.
29. Trikalinos NA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JPA. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:464-70.
30. Consoli L. Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach. Sci Engin Ethics 2006;12:533-41.
31. Kahn JP. Beyond disclosure: the necessity of trust in biomedical research. Cleve Clin J Med 2007;74(Suppl 2):S49-50.
32. Grant JB, Mackinnon AJ, Christensen H, et al. Participants' perceptions of motivation, randomisation and withdrawal in a randomised controlled trial of interventions for prevention of depression. J Med Ethics 2009;35:768-73.