Authors of a study on the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 have retracted the work, saying they “can no
longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”
The study, published in The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), last month, found that use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine was linked to increased rates of mortality and heart
problems among hospital patients with COVID-19. However, three of the study authors say “serious concerns” were raised about the veracity of the data and analyses provided by US company Surgisphere.
The SMC asked experts to comment on this retraction.
Dr Rhian Salmon, Deputy Director, Centre for Science and Society, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington,
comments:
“The peer review process in science is not perfect, but it’s the best mechanism that we currently have to share,
interrogate and question each other’s research outputs. It relies heavily on the ethical and professional practice of
all involved: authors, reviewers and publishers. While this system has clearly been under increased pressure due to the
urgency of COVID-19 research, it’s very disappointing that a paper was accepted that then needed to be retracted.
“The retracted paper was an extensive study into the value of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in treating COVID-19,
including data from over 96,000 patients. As such, it would have been an extremely important contribution to this
research area and I hope they find a way to access and re-evaluate their data. The authors should have never submitted
this article if they were in any doubt about the robustness of their data. The peer-review process of the journals
themselves should have also highlighted any issues.
“Both the authors and journal have definitely done the right thing, however, by retracting the paper once there were
concerns. Experiences like this need to be thoroughly investigated so that we can continually improve the peer review
process and sharing of critical research.”
No conflict of interest.
The UK Science Media Centre gathered the following comments.
Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said:
“There is little to add following the expression of concern. While concealing identifiable individual patient data is
important, there are other ways to verify the integrity of the data. For example, data providers should be able to
confirm that they have provided data with at the very least, the approximate numbers of patients involved.
“It is correct to retract the paper in these circumstances. Further investigations may be required.
“It remains the case that the results from randomised trials are necessary to draw reliable conclusions. it is to be
hoped that the results will be available soon.”
No conflict of interest.
Prof Chris Chambers, School of Psychology, Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, (Chair of the Registered
Reports Committee, Center for Open Science and Member of the UK Reproducibility Network Steering Group) said:
“It is right that these articles were retracted. However, the failure to resolve such basic concerns about the data
during the course of normal peer review raises serious questions about the standard of editing at the Lancet and NEJM —
ostensibly two of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. If these journals take issues of reproducibility and
scientific integrity as seriously as they claim, then they should forthwith submit themselves and their internal review
processes to an independent inquiry.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Registered Reports editor at BMJ Open Science, Cortex, European Journal of
Neuroscience, PLOS Biology, Royal Society Open Science. Advisory Board member for Nature Human Behaviour. No other
relevant interests.”