NEJM paper retracted for “inaccuracies in the analytic database and data analyses” – Retraction Watch
Until yesterday, the New England Journal of Medicine had retracted solely 24 papers. Now that tally is 25.
As our Ivan Oransky studies at Medscape:
The unique paper discovered that “ambulatory blood-pressure measurements were a stronger predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than clinic blood-pressure measurements,” the authors wrote. It made a little bit of a splash, and has been cited 190 instances, in response to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, incomes it a “hot paper” and “highly cited paper” designation.
Head over to Medscape to be taught why the paper was retracted.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, comply with us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you may tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.