A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In ...contrast 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ~10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed ...articles are withdrawn.
We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972-1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972-1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).
The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for "new" offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
Background Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud ...in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing. Methods The reasons for retracting 742 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Reasons for retraction were initially dichotomised as fraud or error and then analysed to determine specific reasons for retraction. Results Error was more common than fraud (73.5% of papers were retracted for error (or an undisclosed reason) vs 26.6% retracted for fraud). Eight reasons for retraction were identified; the most common reason was scientific mistake in 234 papers (31.5%), but 134 papers (18.1%) were retracted for ambiguous reasons. Fabrication (including data plagiarism) was more common than text plagiarism. Total papers retracted per year have increased sharply over the decade (r=0.96; p<0.001), as have retractions specifically for fraud (r=0.89; p<0.001). Journals now reach farther back in time to retract, both for fraud (r=0.87; p<0.001) and for scientific mistakes (r=0.95; p<0.001). Journals often fail to alert the naïve reader; 31.8% of retracted papers were not noted as retracted in any way. Conclusions Levels of misconduct appear to be higher than in the past. This may reflect either a real increase in the incidence of fraud or a greater effort on the part of journals to police the literature. However, research bias is rarely cited as a reason for retraction.
Failure of bone fracture healing occurs in 5% to 10% of all patients. Nonunion risk is associated with the severity of injury and with the surgical treatment technique, yet progression to nonunion is ...not fully explained by these risk factors.
To test a hypothesis that fracture characteristics and patient-related risk factors assessable by the clinician at patient presentation can indicate the probability of fracture nonunion.
An inception cohort study in a large payer database of patients with fracture in the United States was conducted using patient-level health claims for medical and drug expenses compiled for approximately 90.1 million patients in calendar year 2011. The final database collated demographic descriptors, treatment procedures as per Current Procedural Terminology codes; comorbidities as per International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes; and drug prescriptions as per National Drug Code Directory codes. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for variables associated with nonunion. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012.
Continuous enrollment in the database was required for 12 months after fracture to allow sufficient time to capture a nonunion diagnosis.
The final analysis of 309 330 fractures in 18 bones included 178 952 women (57.9%); mean (SD) age was 44.48 (13.68) years. The nonunion rate was 4.9%. Elevated nonunion risk was associated with severe fracture (eg, open fracture, multiple fractures), high body mass index, smoking, and alcoholism. Women experienced more fractures, but men were more prone to nonunion. The nonunion rate also varied with fracture location: scaphoid, tibia plus fibula, and femur were most likely to be nonunion. The ORs for nonunion fractures were significantly increased for risk factors, including number of fractures (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 2.34-2.99), use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus opioids (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.73-1.95), operative treatment (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.69-1.86), open fracture (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.55-1.77), anticoagulant use (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.51-1.66), osteoarthritis with rheumatoid arthritis (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.38-1.82), anticonvulsant use with benzodiazepines (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.36-1.62), opioid use (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34-1.52), diabetes (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.61), high-energy injury (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49), anticonvulsant use (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.31-1.43), osteoporosis (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34), male gender (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.25), insulin use (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31), smoking (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.26), benzodiazepine use (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31), obesity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12-1.25), antibiotic use (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21), osteoporosis medication use (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.26), vitamin D deficiency (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22), diuretic use (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.18), and renal insufficiency (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17) (multivariate P < .001 for all).
The probability of fracture nonunion can be based on patient-specific risk factors at presentation. Risk of nonunion is a function of fracture severity, fracture location, disease comorbidity, and medication use.
The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of ...those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.
Studies of people with schizophrenia assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) usually include patients with first-episode and chronic disease, yet brain abnormalities may be limited to those ...with chronic schizophrenia.
To determine whether patients with a first episode of schizophrenia have characteristic brain abnormalities.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 papers comparing brain volume in patients with a first psychotic episode with volume in healthy controls.
A total of 52 cross-sectional studies included 1424 patients with a first psychotic episode; 16 longitudinal studies included 465 such patients. Meta-analysis suggests that whole brain and hippocampal volume are reduced (both P<0.0001) and that ventricular volume is increased (P<0.0001) in these patients relative to healthy controls.
Average volumetric changes are close to the limit of detection by MRI methods. It remains to be determined whether schizophrenia is a neurodegenerative process that begins at about the time of symptom onset, or whether it is better characterised as a neurodevelopmental process that produces abnormal brain volumes at an early age.
BackgroundPapers retracted for fraud (data fabrication or data falsification) may represent a deliberate effort to deceive, a motivation fundamentally different from papers retracted for error. It is ...hypothesised that fraudulent authors target journals with a high impact factor (IF), have other fraudulent publications, diffuse responsibility across many co-authors, delay retracting fraudulent papers and publish from countries with a weak research infrastructure.MethodsAll 788 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Data pertinent to each retracted paper were abstracted from the paper and the reasons for retraction were derived from the retraction notice and dichotomised as fraud or error. Data for each retracted article were entered in an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.ResultsJournal IF was higher for fraudulent papers (p<0.001). Roughly 53% of fraudulent papers were written by a first author who had written other retracted papers (‘repeat offender’), whereas only 18% of erroneous papers were written by a repeat offender (χ=88.40; p<0.0001). Fraudulent papers had more authors (p<0.001) and were retracted more slowly than erroneous papers (p<0.005). Surprisingly, there was significantly more fraud than error among retracted papers from the USA (χ2=8.71; p<0.05) compared with the rest of the world.ConclusionsThis study reports evidence consistent with the ‘deliberate fraud’ hypothesis. The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a calculated effort to deceive. It is inferred that such behaviour is neither naïve, feckless nor inadvertent.
Retraction of flawed articles is an important mechanism for correction of the scientific literature. We recently reported that the majority of retractions are associated with scientific misconduct. ...In the current study, we focused on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the major causes of error. Analysis of the retraction notices for 423 articles indexed in PubMed revealed that the most common causes of error‐related retraction are laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results. The most common laboratory errors are contamination and problems relating to molecular biology procedures (e.g., sequencing, cloning). Retractions due to contamination were more common in the past, whereas analytical errors are now increasing in frequency. A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature. In particular, few cases of retraction due to cell line contamination were found despite recognition that this problem has affected numerous publications. An understanding of the errors leading to retraction can guide practices to improve laboratory research and the integrity of the scientific literature. Perhaps most important, our analysis has identified major problems in the mechanisms used to rectify the scientific literature and suggests a need for action by the scientific community to adopt protocols that ensure the integrity of the publication process.—Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., Fang, F. C. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J. 28, 3847‐3855 (2014). www.fasebj.org
Bone fractures fail to heal and form nonunions in roughly 5% of cases, with little expectation of spontaneous healing thereafter. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of published papers ...that describe nonunions treated with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS).
Articles in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched, using an approach recommended by the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), with a Level of Evidence rating by two reviewers independently. Studies are included here if they reported fractures older than 3 months, presented new data with a sample N≥12, and reported fracture outcome (Heal/Fail).
Thirteen eligible papers reporting LIPUS treatment of 1441 nonunions were evaluated. The pooled estimate of effect size for heal rate was 82% (95% CI: 77–87%), for any anatomical site and fracture age of at least 3 months, with statistical heterogeneity detected across all primary studies (Q=41.2 (df=12), p<0.001, Tau2=0.006, I2=71). With a stricter definition of nonunion as fracture age of at least 8 months duration, the pooled estimate of effect size was 84% (95% CI: 77%–91.6%; heterogeneity present: Q=21 (df=8), p<0.001, Tau2=0.007, I2=62). Hypertrophic nonunions benefitted more than biologically inactive atrophic nonunions. An interval without surgery of <6months prior to LIPUS was associated with a more favorable result. Stratification of nonunions by anatomical site revealed no statistically significant differences between upper and lower extremity long bone nonunions.
LIPUS treatment can be an alternative to surgery for established nonunions. Given that no spontaneous healing of established nonunions is expected, and that it is challenging to test the efficacy of LIPUS for nonunion by randomized clinical trial, findings are compelling. LIPUS may be most useful in patients for whom surgery is high risk, including elderly patients at risk of delirium, or patients with dementia, extreme hypertension, extensive soft-tissue trauma, mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, multiple organ failure, or coma. With an overall average success rate for LIPUS >80% this is comparable to the success of surgical treatment of non-infected nonunions.
PDF
