美著名麻醉学家Scott S. Reuben承认捏造21篇论文数据

xyz-cn99

　　据《科学家》杂志报道，美国麻省一位具有世界声誉的麻醉学家被指论文造假，涉及论文量巨大，其至少在21篇论文里捏造数据，甚至伪造整个研究。

　　美国麻省Baystate医学中心急性疼痛部前主任Scott Reuben近日承认，他伪造了发表在《麻醉与痛觉丧失》（Anesthesia and Analgesia）上的10篇论文以及另外11篇发表在《急性疼痛》（Acute Pain）、《麻醉学》（Anesthesiology）等期刊上的论文的数据。这些研究均与Reuben的专业领域——多模式镇痛有关。他是该领域的领导者之一。

　　这一造假行为的曝光搅乱了多模式镇痛领域。《麻醉与痛觉丧失》主编Steve Shafer表示，“毫无疑问，多模式镇痛是进行术后疼痛治疗的一个途径”，Reuben的研究提供了关键的证据，支持辉瑞制药公司两种镇痛药Celebrex和Lyrica的联合使用。如果没有了这些研究，“我们知道的将比过去我们认为的少得多”。

　　美国南方整形外科运动医学诊所（Southern Orthopaedic Sports Medicine）整形外科医生、曾与Reuben合作过的Evan Ekman认为，这些造假行为使得该领域极为难堪。美国麻省陆军总医院疼痛医学主任、曾经评审过Reuben论文的James Rathmell表示赞同，他说：“我个人担心这次事件可能会产生附带损害，即没人会再相信我们研究的任何东西。不过在治疗病人方面，影响是相当小的。”（梅进/编译）

（人民网消息）

xyz-cn99

Routine Audit Uncovered Reuben Fraud Missing IRB Info Led To Discovery of Fabricated Data

Early April is an exciting time at Baystate Medical Center. That’s when the Springfield, Mass., institution prepares for its annual research week highlighting the latest studies by its 270 faculty members and other scientists. But 2008 was different. In the run-up to the event, Hal Jenson, MD, Baystate’s chief academic officer, made an alarming discovery. During a routine audit of the summaries, Dr. Jenson found that two abstracts submitted by one of the hospital’s prominent anesthesiologists, Scott S. Reuben, MD, had a potentially critical flaw: neither of the studies appeared to have the approval of Baystate’s institutional review board. That wasn’t necessarily a breach of ethics; after all, multicenter trials often have IRB approval only from sites where patients are enrolled. But it was enough of a red flag that Dr. Jenson asked one of his colleagues to speak with Dr. Reuben about the missing information. What ensued was the unraveling of what medical ethicists are calling one of the largest instances of research fraud ever reported, a massive scandal that has led to the withdrawal of as many as 21 journal articles (see list). Virtual Patients Investigators for the hospital reached a shocking conclusion. “It turned out there was not IRB approval because the data were partially or completely fabricated,” Dr. Jenson told Anesthesiology News. Simply put, Dr. Reuben had concocted the data—and in many cases the patients themselves—out of vapor. Over the following weeks and months, Baystate investigators learned that Dr. Reuben had been falsifying his data for years. A “prolific” writer, according to Dr. Jenson, Dr. Reuben—who graduated from the State University of New York at Buffalo medical school in 1985—has at least 72 published studies to his name on the journal database PubMed, a large number for a relatively young scientist. Yet because of gaps in the record, “in many cases it’s impossible to validate the data for the older studies,” Dr. Jenson said. Baystate, which earlier this year reached out to the journals involved to request retractions of the suspect articles, stressed that none of Dr. Reuben’s co-authors is believed to have been aware of the fraud. The hospital also insists that no patients were harmed in any way by the deception.   Foundation Weakened Dr. Reuben’s research helped lay the foundation for an emerging area of perioperative care known as multimodal analgesia. Due to the sheer scope of the misconduct, advocates said, this field now requires major bolstering to regain the confidence of clinicians and researchers. “We are left with a large hole in our understanding of this field,” said Steven L. Shafer, MD, editor of Anesthesia and Analgesia, which has retracted 10 of Dr. Reuben’s papers. “It will take a while for science and practice to sort this out.” In addition to the charges that he falsified data, Dr. Reuben has been accused by at least two of his co-authors of putting their names on his papers without their consent. One, Evan Ekman, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Columbia, S.C., told Anesthesiology News that Dr. Reuben “forged” his name as a co-author on two articles in which he had absolutely no involvement. Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate, said the institution had received a complaint from another researcher who maintains he was not a co-author with Dr. Reuben.   17-Year Career Undone Dr. Reuben, who began working at Baystate in February 1991, is now on medical leave from his position as director of the acute pain service at the medical center, a private, nonprofit facility affiliated with Tufts University. He also has been stripped of any research and educational activities involving the institutions for a minimum of 10 years, Dr. Jenson said. Under the terms of the hospital’s guidelines for academic integrity, “I have precluded him from presenting the suspect data without my written permission,” said Dr. Jenson, who added that Baystate “does not have any intention of bringing criminal proceedings” against Dr. Reuben in the matter. Paul F. White, PhD, MD, the Margaret Milam McDermott distinguished chair in anesthesiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, called the Reuben case “unprecedented in our specialty.” Dr. White, an editor of Anesthesia and Analgesia, said that given the retracted (and likely-to-be withdrawn) papers and those that are unsullied by the affair, practitioners of multimodal analgesia are now confronted with several significant problems. Giving patients cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors such as celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer) after surgery has consistently been shown to relieve pain, reduce side effects related to use of opioids and improve the quality of recovery in the early and intermediate postoperative periods. However, Dr. White said, any long-term benefit of these drugs on patient outcomes is unconfirmed.    Another question mark, he said, now looms over “preemptive analgesia” with COX-2 inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, a component of multimodal therapy that Dr. Reuben strongly advocated.  Similarly, doubt has been cast on the alleged lack of adverse effects of COX-2 inhibitors on bone fusion—such as at the spine—an effect Dr. Reuben’s data had supported (although this claim already had been an area of considerable controversy, Dr. White told Anesthesiology News). And finally, he said, whether multimodal analgesia can prevent patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery from developing chronic pain, as Dr. Reuben had argued, remains “unproven.” Anesthesia and Analgesia will be publishing a series of editorials on the fraud in its May issue. Because of the layered nature of scientific research and publishing, the scandal “compromises every meta-analysis, editorial, systematic review of analgesic trials”—as well as every lecture and continuing education course—that cited the fraudulent findings, added Dr. White, a member of the editorial board of Anesthesiology News. “Clearly, it’s time get back to the hard work of conducting clinical analgesic studies to address important issues in perioperative pain management and patient outcomes.” Like many anesthesiologists, Dr. Reuben technically was employed not by the hospital but by a private practice—in this case, Springfield Anesthesia Service, a group of about 50 doctors that contracted with Baystate to work in its operating rooms. The scandal has left Springfield Anesthesia reeling and embittered. “We’re all very upset about how he strung us along,” said Steven Dunn, MD, a doctor in the practice. “Our group paid him extra money and gave him nonclinical time. We all worked long hours in the OR so that he could do his research.” Dr. Dunn said he was a co-author with Dr. Reuben of one study, but because he collected the data on that paper himself, the results have not been challenged. However, he said, the nature of the fraud was surprisingly simple—and difficult to detect. “You can see how easy it was to get away with,” he said. “If someone comes to you and says, ‘Here are data on seven patients,’ how do you say, ‘No, I didn’t see you treat those patients’? You assume that a physician would have the integrity not to lie in this way.” Dr. Dunn, who has neither seen nor talked with Dr. Reuben since the fraud was discovered, said he hoped the scandal would not diminish the reputation of Baystate, which he called an “excellent quality” institution. “Baystate has handled this situation in a forthright and proper manner since the initial discovery. It’s disheartening for us that some guy would do this,” he said.   The most alarming aspect of the episode for him, Dr. Dunn said, was that as a skeptic of multimodal analgesia, he would frequently find himself in debates with Dr. Reuben about the approach. During one of those exchanges, Dr. Reuben presented his colleague with a study whose data were so convincing that Dr. Dunn began to doubt his stance. That paper, he recently learned, was on the list of articles to be retracted. “I was appalled that someone could take a paper based on fraudulent work and try to change my practice,” he said.

登录/注册后可看大图

jh1y

既然国外的学者也造假，看来学术界造假是个世界性的问题了。
又，具有世界声誉的麻醉学家被指论文造假，并且涉及论文量巨大，那期刊上的论文中到底有多少水分呢 ？看来不光是股市有泡沫。

wyx267

学术的造假现在很流行，是该杀杀这中歪风了

无痛

论文造假的太多了，现在职称、当官都是基金、论文开道，造假能被发现的有几个？能被追究的又有几个？临床工作者能费神费力做实验的又有几个？如此低成本的造假，如此高的收益，只有傻子才不造假呢！！！

shmu

老美的论文都不可信，还能信谁的呢？

jlbc

我们基层单位的为了进级，有哪个不造假。现在期刊上的论文不用看了。大多是假的。

xyz-cn99

２１篇学术论文已经被相关期刊全部撤销，其本人在至少十年内被禁止从事教研活动。

ycthczh

处处多要新内容，再加之社会竞争，名人的压力，要想做名人，就要有新内容，没有新内容造假当然是捷径了。

小小麻醉

现在的杂志啊，大多是基础研究的，动不动就是分子啊、细胞啊、基因啊的，临床实用的倒一年到头没有几篇，临床研究的文章，一般没有名气的人，有名的杂志根本就没有发表的机会，我已经几年不订麻醉杂志了，需要的几篇文章，网上下载或复印都可以，省得每年一堆杂志，用处不大，还要费神保管，堆放占了好多空间。
如果有时间，我倒喜欢看一些旧书旧杂志，觉得实用的东西还多一些。目前的很多所谓研究，就是为了研究而研究而已，为了晋升，为了业绩，为了学位，为了名气。

kele00

天下论文一大抄,现在又有一大编
真正做学问的毕竟不多,但也有不少的
大家自己扪心自问地做就好啊

tryme

这个是个世界性问题啊。

anestiger

都是体制惹的祸！大家本想好好做点有意义的事，偏偏的为了为了晋升，为了业绩，为了学位，为了名气去发文章！

dongdongzhi

中国人呢，我想几乎一半以上是造假。

qhw123456

造假很正常，关键是造假在医学上，那可是关系人命的啊