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 arti-cles which appear on the Editors' Joint Statement recently posted on the websites of 18 journals, including the Cana-dian Journal of Anesthesia. 1 This unprecedented number of simultaneous article retractions reflects more than a decade of published research examining colloid intravenous solu-tions 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 com-missioned 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 investi-gating committee at Klinikum Ludwigshafen.'' 1 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 investiga-tion 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. A 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 hos-pital in Germany where the study originated. 2 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. 3 It was the Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Plafz (''L K-RLP''), the State Medical Association of Rheinland-Pfalz, which investigated these concerns. According to Drs Hoffart et al., the L K-RLP is authorized to investigate whether a physician has followed the German Code of Deontology or respective laws.