Update to readers and authors on ethical and scientific misconduct: retraction of the “Boldt articles”

Abstract

In this issue of the Journal, most regrettably, we publish retraction notices related to five articles authored by Dr. Joachim Boldt et al. which were published during the years 2000-2003. These retraction notices refer to five of 88 articles which appear on the Editors’ Joint Statement recently posted on the websites of 18 journals, including the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. This unprecedented number of simultaneous article retractions reflects more than a decade of published research examining colloid intravenous solutions and the clinical pharmacology of several anesthetic techniques and drugs used in the perioperative setting. As explained in the Editors’ Joint Statement, ‘‘the retraction of the articles in the Table for lack of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval means that the research was unethical, and IRB approval for the research was misrepresented in the published article. It does not mean that the research results per se are fraudulent. Klinikum Ludwigshafen has commissioned an investigating committee to systematically assess the veracity of the findings presented in Dr. Boldt’s articles against patient and laboratory records. We will communicate to our readers any finding of data fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation identified by the investigating committee at Klinikum Ludwigshafen.’’ These articles are retracted as a result of a recent internal investigation at Klinikum Ludwigshafen in Germany where Dr. Boldt worked for over two decades. The investigation began after Dr. Steven Shafer, Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia, was alerted to concerns from three readers about the implausibility of the very small standard deviations of interleukin IL-6 concentrations reported in an article published in December 2009. As explained by Dr. Shafer in a recent editorial, it required several months to establish the governing body responsible for the ethical conduct of research at Klinikum Ludwigshafen, the hospital in Germany where the study originated. In another recent editorial, Drs Hoffart, Teichmann, and Wessler explain the rather complex and unique role of the ethics committee and the State Medical Association in Germany which oversees biomedical research in that country. It was the Landesarztekammer Rheinland-Plafz (‘‘LAK-RLP’’), the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, which investigated these concerns. According to Drs Hoffart et al., the LAK-RLP is authorized to investigate whether a physician has followed the German Code of Deontology or respective laws. Their investigation determined that Dr. Boldt, who at the time was Chair of the Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care at Klinikum Ludwigshafen, had failed to respect the German Code of Deontology. The investigation identified a number of misrepresentations in the article in question, including the egregious observation that there were no original patient or laboratory data to support the findings in the study. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence that the study had actually taken place. In essence, the study published in Anesthesia & Analgesia in 2009 was fabricated. The article was retracted, and the state government referred the matter to the German Office of the Public Prosecutor. In late November 2010, the administration at Klinikum Ludwigshafen and D. R. Miller, MD (&) Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Office, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, c/o Department of Anesthesia, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, CCW Room 1409, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada e-mail: dmiller@toh.on.ca A Boldt J, Suttner S, Brosch C, et al. Cardiopulmonary bypass priming using a high dose of a balanced hydroxyethyl starch versus an albumin-based priming strategy. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 1752-62.