Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653153›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2017

Application of Benford's law: a valuable tool for detecting scientific papers with fabricated data? : A case study using proven falsified articles against a comparison group.

S Hüllemann, G Schüpfer, J Mauch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Benford's law and metabolomics: A tale of numbers and blood.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S HüllemannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, 6000, Lucerne 16, Switzerland.
G SchüpferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, 6000, Lucerne 16, Switzerland. guido.schuepfer@luks.ch.
J MauchDepartment of Anesthesiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, 6000, Lucerne 16, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn naturally occurring numbers the frequencies of digits 1-9 in the leading position are counterintuitively distributed because the frequencies of occurrence are unequal. Benford-Newcomb's law describes the expected distribution of these frequencies. It was previously shown that known fraudulent articles consistently violated this law.

objectiveTo compare the features of 12 known fraudulent articles from a single Japanese author to the features of 13 articles in the same research field from other Japanese authors, published during the same time period and identified with a Medline database search.

resultsAll 25 articles were assessed to determine whether the data violated the law. Formulas provided by the law were used to determine the frequencies of occurrence for the first two leading digits in manually extracted numbers. It was found that all the known fraudulent papers violated the law and 6 of the 13 articles used for comparison followed the law. Assuming that the articles in the comparison group were not falsified or fabricated, the sensitivity of assessing articles with Benford-Newcomb's law was 100% (95% confidence interval CI: 73.54-100%) but the specificity was only 46.15% (95% CI: 19.22-74.87%) and the positive predictive value was 63.16% (95% CI: 38.36-83.71%).

conclusionAll 12 of the known falsified articles violated Benford-Newcomb's law, which indicated that this analysis had a high sensitivity. The low specificity of the assessment may be explained by the assumptions made about the articles identified for comparison. Violations of Benford-Newcomb's law about the frequencies of the leading digits cannot serve as proof of falsification but they may provide a basis for deeper discussions between the editor and author about a submitted work.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnesthetics, IntravenousDatabases, FactualMEDLINEPeer ReviewPostoperative PainProfessional MisconductPropofolScientific MisconductAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofolBenford-Newcomb distributionData analysis statisticalFraudResearch misconduct

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.