Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Pharmacotherapy. 2012 Jul;32(7):586-95. doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01100.x. Epub 2012 May 11.
Recent studies have suggested an increase in the number of retracted scientific publications. It is unclear how broadly the issue of misleading and fraudulent publications pertains to retractions of drug therapy studies. Therefore, we sought to determine the trends and factors associated with retracted publications in drug therapy literature. A PubMed search was conducted to identify retracted drug therapy articles published from 2000-2011. Articles were grouped according to reason for retraction, which was classified as scientific misconduct or error. Scientific misconduct was further divided into data fabrication, data falsification, questions of data veracity, unethical author conduct, and plagiarism. Error was defined as duplicate publication, scientific mistake, journal error, or unstated reasons. Additional data were extracted from the retracted articles, including type of article, funding source, author information, therapeutic area, and retraction issue. A total of 742 retractions were identified from 2000-2011 in the general biomedical literature, and 102 drug studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 articles (72%) were retracted for a reason classified as scientific misconduct, whereas 29 articles (28%) were retracted for error. Among the 73 articles classified as scientific misconduct, those classified as unethical author conduct (32 articles [44%]) and data fabrication (24 articles [33%]) constituted the majority. The median time from publication of the original article to retraction was 31 months (range 1-130). Fifty percent of retracted articles did not state a funding source, whereas pharmaceutical manufacturer funding accounted for only 13 articles (13%) analyzed. Many retractions were due to repeat offenses by a small number of authors, with nearly 40% of the retracted studies associated with two individuals. We found that a greater proportion of drug therapy articles were retracted for reasons of misconduct and fraud compared with other biomedical studies. It is important for health care practitioners to monitor the literature for retractions so that recommendations for drug therapy and patient management may be modified accordingly.
最近的研究表明,被撤回的科学出版物数量有所增加。目前尚不清楚误导性和欺诈性出版物问题在多大程度上与药物治疗研究的撤回有关。因此,我们试图确定药物治疗文献中撤回出版物的趋势和相关因素。通过 PubMed 搜索,确定了 2000 年至 2011 年发表的撤回药物治疗文章。根据撤回原因对文章进行分组,分为科学不端行为或错误。科学不端行为进一步分为数据捏造、数据伪造、数据真实性问题、不道德的作者行为和剽窃。错误定义为重复发表、科学错误、期刊错误或未说明的原因。从撤回的文章中提取了其他数据,包括文章类型、资金来源、作者信息、治疗领域和撤回问题。在 2000 年至 2011 年的一般生物医学文献中,共确定了 742 次撤回,其中 102 项药物研究符合我们的纳入标准。在这些研究中,有 73 篇文章(72%)因科学不端行为而被撤回,有 29 篇文章(28%)因错误而被撤回。在被归类为科学不端行为的 73 篇文章中,有 32 篇(44%)被归类为不道德的作者行为,24 篇(33%)被归类为数据捏造。从原始文章发表到撤回的中位时间为 31 个月(范围为 1-130)。50%的撤回文章未说明资金来源,而仅分析了 13 篇(13%)由制药商资助的文章。许多撤回是由于少数作者的重复违规行为造成的,近 40%的撤回研究与两个人有关。我们发现,与其他生物医学研究相比,药物治疗文章因不当行为和欺诈而被撤回的比例更高。医疗保健从业者密切监测文献中的撤回情况非常重要,以便相应地修改药物治疗和患者管理的建议。