Pfizer database errors cause two voluminous retractions for JACC statin-biomarker papers

Coding errors in a database maintained by Pfizer have led authors to retract two heart biomarker papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The two notices, for “Prediction of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients by lipid and non-lipid biomarkers” and “Plasma PCSK9 levels and clinical outcomes in the TNT (Treating to New Targets) Trial,” are highly detailed and say the same thing:

Trial irregularities earn Lancet study of potential weight loss drug tesofensine Expression of Concern

A potential weight loss drug has been dealt what could be a serious setback after regulators found problems at two trial sites.

While awaiting a final report, The Lancet, which published a study of the drug, tesofensine, has issued an Expression of Concern:

Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”

Whose business are the reasons behind a retraction?

Our readers will no doubt know by now that we think they’re basically everyone’s — at least if journals want us to believe that they’re interested in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. But not all editors seem to agree. Hank Edmunds, for example, didn’t in early 2011, telling us, “It’s none of your damn business.” A chemistry journal editor said, in a similar vein, “the purpose of keeping these retraction notices slim is not to produce too much detail.”

Now, a psychology journal editor joins those ranks. Here’s the notice in question:

Bowel cell paper falls to culture confusion

A group of nutrition researchers at the University of California, Davis has retracted their paper in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences for what they describe as a botched experiment involving mixed-up cultures.

The article, titled “Dextran Sulfate Sodium Inhibits Alanine Synthesis in Caco-2 Cells,” appeared in 2011 and was retracted in February 2012, although it just came to our attention.

According to the abstract:

Plague paper partially retracted

Partial retractions — as opposed corrections or the full monty —  are unusual events in scientific publishing. But they appear to come in twos.

The journal Infection and Immunity, the work of whose editor, Ferric Fang, is much admired by this blog, has a fascinating example of the breed in its February issue.

The article in question, by a group from the University of Kentucky in Lexington led by Susan Straley, appeared online in 2007. It was titled “yadBC of Yersinia pestis, a New Virulence Determinant for Bubonic Plague,” and, as the words suggest, involved a gene marker for the virulence of plague. Or so it initially seemed.

But according to the partial retraction, the researchers are walking back one of their main claims. Consider:

“Extensive” errors force retraction of lymphoma radiation paper

A group of researchers from Mexico has been forced to retract their July 2012 paper in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology *Biology*Physics after a reader noticed cracks in the data that proved to be signs of fatal instability.

Here’s the retraction notice for the article, titled, “Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Radiotherapy in Primary Mediastinal Large B-Lymphoma”:

Does “the computer ate my homework” explain retraction of higher ed paper?

We’ve seen papers retracted for lots of reasons, but this is a new one.

A researcher at the University of Ruhuna in Sri Lanka has been forced to retract a paper in the International Journal of Public Administration after evidently failing to properly install the computer software used to process the data.

Here’s the retraction notice for the 2010 article, by Chamil Rathnayake:

Paper on how swine flu might spread to birds retracted for error

Emerging Infectious Diseases, a CDC journal, is retracting a 2010 paper about swine flu by a group of Minnesota researchers who acknowledged misinterpreting their results.

The study, a letter titled “Triple Reassortant Swine Influenza A (H3N2) Virus in Waterfowl,” claimed to shed new light on how flu viruses might jump between species:

Scientists retract paper because they’re “not satisfied with the quality of some of the data”

A group of smoking researchers — no, not scientists who are on fire; scientists who study the effects of tobacco smoke — has retracted a 2009 article after deciding that they were no longer “satisfied with the quality of the data.”

The paper, “Cigarette Smoke–induced Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Impairs VEGF- and Fluid Shear Stress–Mediated Signaling in Endothelial Cells,” came from the lab of Irfan Rahman, a lung disease expert at the University of Rochester. It appeared online in 2009 in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, which will be familiar to readers watching the case of Dipak Das. 

As the notice explains:

Sweet nothings: Buggy data force retraction of sugarcane pest paper

The journal Environmental Entomology (that’s insects, not words) is retracting a 2010 paper on a sugarcane-loving borer insect by a group from south Florida.

The article, “Life Table Studies of Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Sugarcane,” came from the Everglades Research & Education Center, an arm of the University of Florida.

According to the notice: