Advertisement
Gene Tools
Gene Tools

Stem-Cell Heart Repair Questioned

A new analysis finds hundreds of discrepancies in publications from a German researcher who claims to have repaired diseased hearts using stem-cell therapy.
 

By | July 8, 2013

WIKIMEDIA, HEIKENWAELDER HUGODozens of papers by a German cardiologist who claims to have succeeded in using bone marrow-derived stem cells to repair patients’ damaged hearts are riddled with errors and inconsistencies, according to an analysis published last week (July 2) in the International Journal of Cardiology.

Bodo-Eckehard Strauer, who retired from the University of Dusseldorf in 2009, first announced that the approach was successful in 2001. But many stem-cell scientists have been skeptical of the claims, reported Nature, and the University of Dusseldorf began investigating some of Strauer’s papers last December.

Now, researchers from Imperial College London in the U.K. have analyzed 48 of Strauer’s papers—which describe results from five clinical studies—and revealed various problems. For instance, the researchers found duplicate and overlapping reports of the same trials, each detailing contradictory experimental design, recruitment, and results. They also said that it was not clear whether the studies were randomized or not. In addition, the UK team spotted arithmetical miscalculations and statistical errors. In total, they found more than 200 discrepancies—defined as pairs of statements that can’t both be true. 

“Looking deeper, the seemingly comprehensive and decisive proof of efficacy gradually unravelled . . . the more we thought about it, the less we could understand,” said report coauthor Darrel Francis in a statement. “In the end we couldn’t even work out whether some of these studies were randomised or not, or how many patients had really been studied. This is an unusual situation for studies which report being able to make the difference between life and death.”

Ruben Engel, Strauer’s lawyer, responded to the allegations in an email to Nature. “In manuscripts of the working group of our client have appeared, unfortunately, arithmetic errors, [that] can never be excluded completely,” he wrote. “Our client apologizes for this to the publishers resp. has already corrected these errors [sic].”

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: PKM

PKM

Posts: 1

July 8, 2013

A reputed scientist can not exclude arithmetic errors? That's sad. It hurts the enire sceitific field.

Avatar of: RPN

RPN

Posts: 1

July 8, 2013

This sounds like it could be pretty serious misconduct in an extremely important area.  But  I wonder whether any serious errors beyond sloppy reporting  (such as fabricating results) have actually been identified. If so, it would seem that an investigation would be essential  and could perhaps find out the well-being of some of the patients who have received the procedure, and are claimed to have benefitted.

Avatar of: Francis85

Francis85

Posts: 2

July 9, 2013

200 discrepancies is a little bit too much.......

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Teknova
Teknova
Advertisement
PITTCON
PITTCON
Life Technologies