Talk:Retractions, corrections and expressions of concern in chronic fatigue syndrome research

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history

Idea for new page -- notjusttired (talk) 12:39, August 7, 2019 (EDT)[edit source | reply | new]

Suggesting a new page, if there's enough to cover. I haven't been able to find a list of MFS/CFS retractions or calls for retraction anywhere. notjusttired (talk) 12:39, August 7, 2019 (EDT)

Retracted articles[edit source | reply | new]

  • XMRV virus

Withdrawn publications[edit source | reply | new]

  • Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (individual patient data)] - Cochrane - published 2014[1] withdrawn 2018[2] - withdrawn as protocol no longer being progressed to a review[3]

Editorial and author corrections[edit source | reply | new]

The final version includes acknowledgement from the authors that the study was not fully ICMJE compliant. The process has additionally involved seeking assurance from the authors that the change in primary outcome was not influenced by (positive) findings in the feasibility phase... BMJ policy requires prospective registration of randomised trials but we do not consider a failure to enforce that policy grounds for retraction. - Nick Brown, Editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood (2019)
Extracts from the editorial correction of the SMILE trial for ME/CFS by Esther Crawley et al (2018).

An open letter was sent to the editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood in January 2018 by Dr David Tuller and over twenty other signatories for a correction to the serious issues and anomalies in the published paper.[5] In July 2019, after an investigation by the Archives of Disease in Childhood, and significant correspondence between the study's authors, journal editor Nick Brown, and Dr David Tuller, a lengthy and detailed editorial correction to the SMILE trial was published but the journal refusal to retract the SMILE publication.[4]

Expressions of concern[edit source | reply | new]

  • A PLOS ONE PACE trial study[6][7]. The Editors of PLOS One, Iratxe Puebla and Joerg Heber, wrote in PLOS One Blog "Since we feel we have exhausted the options to make the data available responsibly, and considering the questions that were raised about the validity of the article’s conclusions, we have decided to post an Expression of Concern to alert readers that the data are not available in line with the journal’s editorial policy".[8]

Calls for retraction[edit source | reply | new]

(significant calls for retraction only, not every call for retraction since pelt like Michael Sharpe ask for so many to be retracted)

See also[edit source | reply | new]

Learn more[edit source | reply | new]

  • COPE standards link

References[edit source | reply | new]

  1. ↑ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040/abstract
  2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Cochrane2014
  3. ↑ https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040.pub2&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD011040.pub2&type=cdsr&contentLanguage=
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brown, Nick (July 2019). "Editor's Note on Correction to Crawley et al 2018". Archives of Disease in Childhood.
  5. ↑ Tuller, David (January 30, 2018). "Trial By Error: A Letter to Archives of Disease in Childhood". Virology blog. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
  6. ↑ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808
  7. ↑ Puebla, Iratxe; Heber, Joerg (May 2, 2017). "Expression of Concern: Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis". PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0177037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177037. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5412692. PMID 28463341.
  8. ↑ "Data sharing in clinical research: challenges and open opportunities". PLoS. May 2, 2017. Retrieved July 19, 2020.

PACE trial A controversial study which claimed that CBT and GET were effective in treating "CFS/ME", despite the fact that its own data did not support this conclusion. Its results and methodology were widely disputed by patients, scientists, and the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Retrieved from "https://me-pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Retractions,_corrections_and_expressions_of_concern_in_chronic_fatigue_syndrome_research&oldid=239949"