Published 20 May 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2057
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b2057

News

Journal retracts article about age of transfused blood three years after publication

Jeanne Lenzer

1 New York

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

A medical journal has reversed its controversial 2007 decision not to retract a flawed study. The journal, Anesthesia and Analgesia, refused to retract a study concerning the age of transfused blood and mortality despite acknowledging that the statistical analysis was erroneous.

The journal’s position provoked outrage when the editor continued to defend the article even after the study investigators said that the underlying data had been lost.

The journal’s editor, Steven Shafer, issued the retraction (Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009;108:1953) after the authors, Sukhjeewan Basran and colleagues, wrote a letter (2009;108:1991) requesting retraction of their 2006 paper, in which they concluded that surgical patients who received red blood cells that had been stored for more than 30 days were more likely to die than patients who received fresher blood.

The study’s corresponding author, Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, told the New York Times in June 2006 that they had carried out the . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Editorial Responsibility
Steven L Shafer
bmj.com, 16 Sep 2009 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ