Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Retraction of 22 manuscripts due to lack of IRB approval, emphasizing the absolute requirement of ethical oversight in human research.
In 2009, Dr. Joachim Boldt published a manuscript in Anesthesia & Analgesia comparing albumin and hydroxyethyl starch priming cardiopulmonary bypass.1 A subsequent review by Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz (LÄ#K-RLP), the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, determined that there was no IRB approval for the study. The article was retracted in December 2010.2 In response to the concerns regarding IRB approval LÄ#K-RLP investigated 103 additional manuscripts that included Dr. Boldt as a coauthor, including 23 manuscripts published in Anesthesia & Analgesia. Of these 23 articles, LÄ#K-RLP was able to verify IRB approval for only one.3 LÄ#K-RLP was unable to document IRB approval for the remaining 22 articles.4–25 Research without IRB approval is a violation of human rights. As described in our Guide for Authors,26 and a recent editorial,27Anesthesia & Analgesia requires IRB approval for all human research. There are no exceptions. The 22 manuscripts published by Dr. Boldt for which IRB approval has not been confirmed by LÄ#K-RLP are hereby retracted for unethical conduct of research. According to our publisher, the programs that link papers to retraction notices require a unique document identification number for each paper retracted. Therefore, this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia contains 22 individual retraction notices representing the individual articles for which IRB approval has not been verified. Steven L.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steven L. Shafer (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: