A case-control comparison of retracted and non-retracted clinical trials: Can retraction be predicted?

Publications

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 27-37

  Grant Steen, R ^a   Hamer, Robert M ^b  

^a Medical Communications Consultants LLC   (United States)

^b The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Data fabrication; Data falsification; Randomized clinical trial; Scientific fraud

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895807707     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications2010027     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Jaffer, U.; Cameron, A.E. Deceit and fraud in medical research. Int. J. Surg. 2006, 4, 122–126.
2. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the medical literature: Who is responsible for scientific integrity? AMWA J. 2011, 26, 2–7.
3. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37, 113–117.
4. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J. Med. Ethics 2010, 37, 249–253.
5. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the medical literature: How many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37, 688–692.
6. Buyse, M.; George, S.L.; Evans, S.; Geller, N.L.; Ranstam, J.; Scherrer, B.; LeSaffrez, E.; Murray, G.; Edler, L.; Hutton, J.; et al. The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 1999, 18, 3435–3451.
7. Harrison, W.T.A.; Simpson, J.; Weil, M. Editorial. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. E 2010, 66, e1–e2.
8. Taylor, R.N.; McEntegart, D.J.; Stillman, E.C. Statistical techniques to detect fraud and other data irregularities in clinical questionnaire data. Drug Inform. J. 2002, 36, 115–125.
9. Al-Marzouki, S.; Evans, S.; Maeshall, T.; Roberts, I. Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ 2005, 331, 267–270.
10. White, C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 2005, 331, 281–288.
11. Smith, R. Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ 2005, 331, 288–291.
12. Marcus, A. More retractions in Boldt case. Anesthes. News 2011, 37. Available online: http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Web+Exclusives&d_id=175&i=Februa ry+2011&i_id=702&a_id=16700 (accessed on 1 October 2013).
13. Shafer, S.L. Editor’s Note: Notices of retraction. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 1.
14. White, P.F.; Kehlet, H.; Liu, S. Perioperative analgesia: What do we still know? Anesth. Analg. 2009, 108, 1364–1367.
15. Trikalinos, N.A.; Evangelou, E.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 464–470.
16. Weiss, R.B.; Rifkin, R.M.; Stewart, F.M.; Theriault, R.L.; Williams, L.A.; Herman, A.A.; Beveridge, R. A.; High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: An on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 2000, 355, 999–1003.
17. Bezwoda, W.R.; Seymour, L.; Dansey, R.D. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: A randomized trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 1995, 13, 2483–2489.
18. Weiss, R.B.; Gill, G.G.; Hudis, C.A. An on-site audit of the South African trial of high-dose chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and associated publications. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 2771–2777.
19. Editor. Scientific misconduct revealed in high-dose chemotherapy trials. National Council Against Health Fraud Newsletter, 2001. Available online: http://www.ncahf.org/nl/2001/5–6.html (accessed on 6 September 2013).
20. Rodenhuis, S.; Bontenbal, M.; Beex, L.; Wagstaff, J.; Richel, D.J.; Nooij, M.A.; Voest, E.E.; Hupperets, P.; van Tinteren, H.; Peterse, H.L.; et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for high-risk breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349, 7–17.
21. Stadtmauer, E.A.; O’Neill, A.; Goldstein, L.J.; Crilley, P.A.; Mangan, K.F.; Ingle, J.N.; Brodsky, I.; Martino, S.; Lazarus, H.M.; Erban, J.K.; et al. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 1069–1076.
22. Bergh, J.; Wiklund, T.; Erikstein, B.; Lidbrink, E.; Lindman, H.; Malmström, P.; Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.; Bengtsson, N.O.; Söderlund, G.; Anker, G.; et al. Tailored fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide compared with marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: A randomised trial. Scandinavian Breast Group 9401 study. Lancet 2000, 356, 1384–1391.
23. Tallman, M.S.; Gray, R.; Robert, N.J.; LeMaistre, C.F.; Osborne, C.K.; Vaughan, W.P.; Gradishar, W.J.; Pisansky, T.M.; Fetting, J.; Paietta, E.; et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349, 17–26.
24. Hanrahan, E.O.; Broglio, K.; Frye, D.; Buzdar, A.U.; Theriault, R.L.; Valero, V.; Booser, D.J.; Singletary, S.E.; Strom, E.A.; Gajewski, J.L.; et al. Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support for high-risk primary breast carcinoma: Follow-up at 12 years. Cancer 2006, 106, 2327–2336.
25. Peppercorn, J.; Herndon, J.; Kornblith, A.B.; Peters, W.; Ahles, T.; Vredenburgh, J.; Schwartz, G.; Shpall, E. Quality of life among patients with Stage II and III breast carcinoma randomized to receive high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow support or intermediate-dose chemotherapy: Results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9066. Cancer 2005, 104, 1580–1589.
26. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005, 294, 218–228.
27. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005, 2, e124.