0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

Retracting, Replacing, and Correcting the Literature for Pervasive Error in Which the Results Change but the Underlying Science Is Still Reliable FREE

Stephan Heckers, MD1; Howard Bauchner, MD2; Annette Flanagin, RN, MA2
[+] Author Affiliations
1JAMA Psychiatry, Nashville, Tennessee
2JAMA and The JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(12):1170-1171. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

In this issue of JAMA Psychiatry, Lopes and colleagues1 request retraction and replacement of their article titled “Gamma Ventral Capsulotomy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.”2 After an error was discovered by Baethge,3 as also reported in a letter herein, the authors reviewed the data and confirmed an important but inadvertent error had occurred. As the authors explain in their letter to the editor,1 this error involved a miscomputation of a treatment response for 1 of the 8 trial participants in the treatment group. This error resulted in an erroneous Yale -Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale score of 36 instead of 30 for that participant, which the authors counted as a responder to the treatment rather than a nonresponder. Thus, the number of responders in the treatment group at 12 months (as per the primary outcome reported in the trial protocol) is 2 of 8 participants rather than the originally reported 3 of 8 participants.

Because of this error, the authors reconducted the analysis and provided a corrected article with corrections to the Abstract; Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the article; and relevant tables and figures in the article and online supplement. The authors have confirmed that there are no additional errors. The corrected article has been reviewed and we have confirmed that the primary outcome has changed as stated in the corrected article: “Two of 8 patients randomized to active treatment responded at 12 months, and none of the 8 sham-GVC patients responded (the absolute difference was not statistically significant: 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05-0.55; P = .11).”2

Retractions are typically reserved for articles that have resulted from scientific misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, or from pervasive error for which the results cannot be substantiated.46 In scientific publication, a pervasive error could result from a coding problem or a miscalculation and results in extensive inaccuracies throughout an article (eg, abstract, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, tables, and figures). Publication of pervasive incorrect data resulting in a major change in the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions, as occurred with the trial reported by Lopes et al,2 is a serious matter. However, in this case, the error was inadvertent and the underlying science is still reliable and important. Thus, we now publish this notice of retraction and replacement with explanation from the authors1 and a corrected replacement article2 as we believe it is important for readers, investigators, and clinicians to have access to correct results of this trial. We have included a version of the original retracted article showing the original errors and a version of the replacement article showing what was corrected in the online supplement of the corrected replacement article.2

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Corresponding Author: Stephan Heckers, MD, Editor in Chief, JAMA Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, 1601 23rd Ave S, Nashville, TN 37212 (jamapsych@jamanetwork.org).

Published Online: October 28, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

REFERENCES

Lopes  AC, Greenberg  BD, Canteras  MM,  et al.  Gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [published online October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(9):1066-1076.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  AC, Greenberg  BD, Canteras  MM,  et al.  Gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [retracted and replaced online on October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(9):1066-1076.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baethge  C.  Error in calculating main outcome in gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [published online on October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0667.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Scientific misconduct, expressions of concern, and retraction. In: Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.html. Accessed September 29, 2015.
National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retraction, duplicate publication, comment, update and patient summary policy for MEDLINE.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed September 29, 2015.
Flanagin  A. Scientific misconduct. In: AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007, http://www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div1-61. Accessed September 29, 2015.

Figures

Tables

References

Lopes  AC, Greenberg  BD, Canteras  MM,  et al.  Gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [published online October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(9):1066-1076.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  AC, Greenberg  BD, Canteras  MM,  et al.  Gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [retracted and replaced online on October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(9):1066-1076.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baethge  C.  Error in calculating main outcome in gamma ventral capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial [published online on October 28, 2015]. JAMA Psychiatry. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0667.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Scientific misconduct, expressions of concern, and retraction. In: Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.html. Accessed September 29, 2015.
National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retraction, duplicate publication, comment, update and patient summary policy for MEDLINE.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed September 29, 2015.
Flanagin  A. Scientific misconduct. In: AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007, http://www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div1-61. Accessed September 29, 2015.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2,001 Views
0 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience
Disclosing the Diagnosis

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Acknowledgment