What Anaesthesia is doing to combat scientific misconduct and investigate data fabrication and falsification

Anaesthesia

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 3-4

  Klein, A A ^a  

^a PAPWORTH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

data fabrication; investigation; journal; research misconduct

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; DATA ANALYSIS; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; ANESTHESIOLOGY; RESEARCH ETHICS;

ANESTHESIA; ANESTHESIOLOGY; ETHICS, RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85006262154     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13731     Document Type: Editorial

References (9)

1. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e68397.
2. Cyranoski D. Retraction record rocks community. Nature 2012; 489: 346–7.
3. Pandit JJ. On statistical methods to test if sampling in trials is genuinely random. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 456–62.
4. Carlisle JB, Loadsman JA. Evidence for non-random sampling in randomised controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 17–27.
5. Carlisle JB. The analysis of 169 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 521–37.
6. Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 848–58.
7. Wise J. Boldt: the great pretender. British Medical Journal 2013; 346: f1738.
8. Marret E, Elia N, Dahl JB, et al. Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 1279–89.
9. Miller DR. Probability screening in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals – an effective tool or a statistical quagmire? Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 765–8.