Critical care journal editors release joint statement affirming commitment to ethical conduct of research

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

In response to an announcement by the German State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz of their initial review of more than 100 articles by Professor Joachim Boldt, Steven L. Shafer, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia, has joined with ten other anesthesiology and critical care journal editors in releasing a joint statement affirming their commitment to ethical conduct of research. In the statement, the Editors-in-Chief commit to retracting any manuscripts by Professor Boldt in their respective journals that report clinical studies without IRB approval.

Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz ("LÄK-RLP"), the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany, made the announcement today about preliminary results in their investigation into Professor Boldt's articles. This inquiry follows the retraction in October 2010 of Professor Boldt's 2009 article in Anesthesia & Analgesia, "Cardiopulmonary bypass priming using a high dose of a balanced hydroxyethyl starch versus an albumin-based priming strategy" because of lack of IRB approval. To date, LÄK-RLP has been unable to document IRB approval for more than 90 published articles. A final report from LÄK-RLP will be made available in several weeks.

Four editorials about misconduct were placed in the online edition Anesthesia & Analgesia today. The German system of research oversight is reviewed in two editorials, one by Dr. Jürgen Hoffart and colleagues from the Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz, and one by Professor Ulrich Förstermann from Johannes Gutenberg University. These editorials explain why many German hospitals do not have a local IRB, which allowed Professor Boldt to conduct studies without IRB oversight. An editorial by Dr. Shafer reports additional findings from Klinikum Ludwigshafen demonstrating that Professor Boldt's retracted study was fabricated. The fourth editorial by Drs Konrad Reinhart and Jukka Takala examines how the revelation that some of Professor Boldt's research was fraudulent changes our understanding of the safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch solutions.

SOURCE Anesthesia & Analgesia

Comments

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Research from NY highlights pollution as a key factor in rising cancer rates among youth