Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

December 06, 2016; 87 (23) Editorial

Statistics and the detection of scientific misconduct

Robert A. Gross, Editor-in-Chief
First published November 9, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003390
Robert A. Gross
From the Strong Epilepsy Center and University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
From the Strong Epilepsy Center and University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
Full PDF
Citation
Statistics and the detection of scientific misconduct
Robert A. Gross, Editor-in-Chief
Neurology Dec 2016, 87 (23) 2388; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003390

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
1907

Share

  • Article
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

The paper by Bolland et al.1 in this issue had a longer “gestation” than usual at Neurology®; it was received on December 4, 2015. We usually review on a tight timeline and publish important work quickly. But this manuscript has a different focus as it presents a statistical analysis that demonstrates probable scientific misconduct (fraud) on a large scale. It is also unique in that its analysis uses complicated methods that may be beyond what most readers are willing to tackle. However, the bottom line is simple: there are statistical methods that, when properly applied, can detect fraudulent behavior by investigators. Clinical trial data can thereby be validated or called into question. In this instance, analysis of a collection of studies by a large research group suggested that at least some of the studies were likely to be fraudulent.

Why did our review process take nearly a year? The findings in this report had implications for the authors and their institutions, for other journals and editors who published work by these authors, and for clinicians, guideline committees, and policymakers who rely on the validity of these findings. In the interests of all involved, we sought input from other editors, coauthors, and institutions. We asked 3 statisticians who regularly review for Neurology® to provide feedback on the manuscript. They validated the work and suggested important changes (as did the editorial team) that resulted in revisions of the article and the final version that is now published.

The present report analyzes 33 studies, 3 of which were published by Neurology. In the midst of our investigation and during the review process of the Bolland et al. manuscript, we heard from the main author of the examined studies (Sato), who admitted that the work reported in Neurology was fraudulent, relieved those he listed as coauthors of any wrongdoing, and requested retraction of the studies.

Fraud in an individual paper may be difficult to detect. Peer review, being a human process, can never be perfect; furthermore, the detection of likely fraudulent activity in the Bolland et al. paper required analysis of many trials. As such, it is unlikely that detection of fraud could have occurred during the review of single papers. Furthermore, simply because this group analysis suggested the likelihood of fraudulent activity, one cannot conclude that any one study—among those in the analysis—is, or is not, fraudulent. The authors were careful to avoid any deductions about individual studies, especially as there were multiple authors within the research group.

As part of our due process, we have notified other editors whose journals published papers by Sato et al., communicated with Sato's institution, and published retractions of the 3 papers and a letter published in Neurology.2–4 Each step involved our scientific integrity advisor, former editor-in-chief Robert Daroff. The final outcome is the publication of the Bolland et al. article. Our retractions help to correct the literature and any meta-analyses or guidelines that relied on those data, while publication of this paper shows the method and approach that led to the retractions. We also alert readers and authors that we will continue to use rigorous statistical review to detect fraud with the goal of maintaining the highest possible standards in publishing.

STUDY FUNDING

No targeted funding reported.

DISCLOSURE

Robert A. Gross is supported for educational endeavors from the University of Rochester Medical Center's Clinical and Translational Science Award from the NIH. Since his appointment as Editor-in-Chief in 2009, Dr. Gross has ceased participation in industry-sponsored clinical trials and speakers' bureaus. He receives an honorarium from AAN as Editor-in-Chief of Neurology.

Footnotes

  • See page 2391

  • © 2016 American Academy of Neurology

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bolland MJ,
    2. Avenell A,
    3. Gamble GD,
    4. Grey A
    . Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology 2016;87:2391–2402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Retraction: Risedronate therapy for prevention of hip fracture after stroke in elderly women; Risedronate therapy for prevention of hip fracture after stroke in elderly women. Reply from the Authors. Neurology 2016;87:239. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002788.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Retraction: Risedronate and ergocalciferol prevent hip fracture in elderly men with Parkinson disease. Neurology 2016;87:239. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003021.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Retraction: Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis D by sunlight exposure in stroke patients. Neurology 2016;87:239. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003022.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • STUDY FUNDING
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCE
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Hemiplegic Migraine Associated With PRRT2 Variations A Clinical and Genetic Study

Dr. Robert Shapiro and Dr. Amynah Pradhan

► Watch

Related Articles

  • Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials

Topics Discussed

  • All Ethics in Neurology/Legal issues
  • Professional conduct and ethics

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: 100 (5)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise