crystalloid vs colloid fabricated studies!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yeah, I saw that in the news too. The March issue of A&A has an article trying to figure out what's true in the aftermath.

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/112/3/507.full

That's is just an unbelievable case of fraudulent research.

What's even worse is that he apparently didn't fabricate data. That's bad enough. His real data shows that colloids may actually be harmful. That would be significantly worse.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What's even worse is that he apparently didn't fabricate data. That's bad enough. His real data shows that colloids may actually be harmful. That would be significantly worse.

What's his motive? $$$ from the HES manufacturers? I know there was recently quite a lot of excitement about the tetrastarches.
 
What's his motive? $$$ from the HES manufacturers? I know there was recently quite a lot of excitement about the tetrastarches.

He was a strong advocate of products from his funding companies. I'm sure there were ulterior motives as well. I'm seriously reconsidering the use of colloids (I use a lot of Voluven at the moment).
 
I had almost completely abandoned synthetic colloid in my practice prior to this, i think ill watch from the sidelines. this part is amazing, however

Irregularities in Boldt's research were first noticed last year by readers of the U.S.-based journal Anesthesia and Analgesia, which had published a Boldt study of interleukin-6 levels associated with colloidal albumin and HES solutions.

According to the journal's editor, Steven L. Shafer, MD, three readers contacted the journal to say that the standard deviations in the paper's reported IL-6 concentrations seemed too small to be believable.

Shafer, describing the events in an editorial in the journal, said he checked with experts on IL-6 biology who agreed that the standard deviations were not plausible. He indicated that a close reading disclosed other suspicious findings.
 
This part blows my mind.

For example, although half the patients in the study supposedly received albumin-based priming solutions, no albumin solutions had been used or bought by the hospital in nearly 10 years.

Additionally, there were no records to support the paper's assertions of having received IRB approval or patients' written consent, and Boldt admitted to board investigators that he had forged co-authors' signatures on the manuscript submission.

You would hope that someone would notice this, maybe one of the other authors in the 90+ manuscripts that are being retracted. Even if he forged signatures on the submission forms, you would hope one would say something once you notice "oh hey, I have a new publication I had no involvement with on pubmed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ering-career-built-on-charisma-and-charm.html

http://topnews.net.nz/reports/21245...ctor-forged-90-crucial-studies-about-colloids

Just mind boggling :mad:
 
Top