ReviewDer Anaesthesist2009
[What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study.BMC research notes · 2013Article
- Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs affect bone healing? A critical analysis.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2012Review
- [Original scientific articles: conception, accomplishment and publication].Der Anaesthesist · 2011Article
- [Scientific fraud. When researchers become forgers].Der Anaesthesist · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In February 2009 a major case of scientific misconduct was discovered. The American pain researcher Dr. S. Reuben had published 21 papers over a period of 15 years that were found to be fraudulent. Suddenly many advances in postoperative pain therapy which had been assumed to be correct seemed questionable. In this review article the lessons which can be learnt from this case are described. This review also reveals that it is almost impossible for reviewers or readers of scientific journals to detect scientific fraud. However, several warning signs can be identified that might be useful when reading clinical papers. In retrospect many of these signs were detectable in Reuben's studies. Based on the fraudulent papers of Reuben it will be shown how and to what extent falsified results can affect other types of literature, such as practice guidelines, meta-analyses, review articles and oral presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19902152What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.