Science News
from research organizations

Facts in scientific drug literature may not be

Date:
May 29, 2012
Source:
University of Illinois at Chicago
Summary:
A growing concern with fraud and misconduct in published drug studies has led researchers to investigate the extent and reasons for retractions in the research.
Share:
         
Total shares:  
FULL STORY

A growing concern with fraud and misconduct in published drug studies has led researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research to investigate the extent and reasons for retractions in the research.

"We were surprised to find the proportion of retractions due to scientific misconduct in the drug literature is higher than in general biomedical literature," said Simon Pickard, associate professor of pharmacy practice and senior author of a study published in the journal Pharmacotherapy.

Nearly three-quarters of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, he said, "which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism. While these studies comprise a small percentage of the overall literature, health care professionals may rely on this evidence to make treatment recommendations."

These studies can affect the treatment of thousands of patients, since scientific publications are often printed months in advance. There is an average lag in time of 39 months between the original publication and a retraction notice, Pickard said.

"Once a health care professional changes treatment options, it's not easy to reverse," said Jennifer Samp, a fellow in Pickard's research group and lead author of the study. "Staying current with new findings in scientific literature is a priority for health care practitioners -- especially pharmacists -- and it is important for them to know when a study has been retracted, especially those with manipulated data."

The UIC team found that a considerable number of the retracted papers were attributable to two authors, one based in Japan and the other in Germany.

Little attention was paid to the implications of scientific publication retractions until a 1998 review documented 235 instances from 1966 to 1997; 37 percent of the retractions were due to scientific misconduct.

Since the 1998 study, more interest has been given to retracted studies. In 2009, the Committee on Publication Ethics released the first set of guidelines to editors on issuing retractions.

"These guidelines should help to reduce the extent and impact of scientific misconduct," Pickard said. "Ironically, greater detection may give the impression that fraudulent science is on the rise, when it is actually being mitigated by these policies."

Glen Schumock, director of the UIC Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research, assisted Pickard and Samp in the study, which was funded by the UIC College of Pharmacy and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A, Inc., which funded Samp's fellowship.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Illinois at Chicago. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Jennifer C. Samp, Glen T. Schumock, A. Simon Pickard. Retracted Publications in the Drug Literature. Pharmacotherapy, 2012 DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01100.x

Cite This Page:

University of Illinois at Chicago. "Facts in scientific drug literature may not be." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 May 2012. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm>.
University of Illinois at Chicago. (2012, May 29). Facts in scientific drug literature may not be. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 26, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm
University of Illinois at Chicago. "Facts in scientific drug literature may not be." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm (accessed April 26, 2015).

Share This Page:


Science & Society News
April 26, 2015

Latest Headlines
updated 12:56 pm ET