Literature DB >> 27988952

Evidence for non-random sampling in randomised, controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh.

J B Carlisle1, J A Loadsman2,3.   

Abstract

A large number of randomised trials authored by Yoshitaka Fujii have been retracted, in part as a consequence of a previous analysis finding a very low probability of random sampling. Dr Yuhji Saitoh co-authored 34 of those trials and he was corresponding author for eight of them. We found a number of additional randomised, controlled trials that included baseline data, with Saitoh as corresponding author, that Fujii did not co-author. We used Monte Carlo simulations to analyse the baseline data from 32 relevant trials in total as well as an outcome (muscle twitch recovery ratios) reported in several. We also compared a series of muscle twitch recovery graphs appearing in a number of Saitoh's publications. The baseline data in 14/32 randomised, controlled trials had p < 0.01, of which seven p values were < 0.001. Eight trials reported four ratios of the time for the return of muscle activity after neuromuscular blockade, the distributions of which were homogeneous: the p values for the observed Q statistics were 0.0055, 0.031, 0.016 and 0.0071. Comparison of graphs revealed multiple coincident or near-coincident curves across a large number of publications, a finding also inconsistent with random sampling. Combining the continuous and categorical probabilities of the 32 included trials, we found a very low likelihood of random sampling: p = 1.27 × 10-8 (1 in 100,000,000). The high probability of non-random sampling and the repetition of lines in multiple graphs suggest that further scrutiny of Saitoh's work is warranted.
© 2016 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Keywords:  controlled trials; data fabrication; fraud; randomised

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27988952     DOI: 10.1111/anae.13650

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  9 in total

Review 1.  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.

Authors:  S Hüllemann; G Schüpfer; J Mauch
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Check for publication integrity before misconduct.

Authors:  Andrew Grey; Mark J Bolland; Alison Avenell; Andrew A Klein; C K Gunsalus
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  How a data detective exposed suspicious medical trials.

Authors:  David Adam
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Evidence and risk indicators of non-random sampling in clinical trials in implant dentistry: A systematic appraisal.

Authors:  Jun-Yu Shi; Xiao Zhang; Shu-Jiao Qian; Shi-Min Wei; Kai-Xiao Yan; Min Xu; Hong-Chang Lai; Maurizio S Tonetti
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 7.478

6.  Retraction of papers authored by Yuhji Saitoh - Beyond the Fujii phenomenon.

Authors:  Priyam Saikia; Bandana Thakuria
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2019-07

7.  Fraud in publications-retractions and deterrents.

Authors:  S Bala Bhaskar
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2019-07

8.  Establishing an environment in which rigorous scientific inquiry is practiced: a personal journey.

Authors:  Stanley T Crooke
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 19.160

9.  Between evidence and commerce - the case of sufentanil sublingual tablet systems.

Authors:  C Bantel; H C Laycock
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 6.955

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.