The COOPERATE trial

Halbekath, Jutta; Schenk, Stefanie

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12802-4

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study involved 280 patients recruited in two months, and the other had 500 patients in three months. 20 Inquiry was probed by the journal upon which Sato defended his study, replying publicly in the same journal, he wrote,…”

Section: Bones Of Contentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The making of scientific ethics – lessons from unethical conducts

Lalchhandama¹

2020

Sci Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With its importance in and influence to our lives, well-being and survival, science has never been more vulnerable to prejudices and scandals as a platform of all sorts of academic misconducts. Lessons are taught by some of the biggest unethical conducts in the recent past which had prompted more stringent ethical guidelines and publication procedures. The case of Yoshitaka Fujii as a scientist with the most number of publications retracted is astonishing. The ability of Yoshihiro Sato to deceive the world leading journals and their referees is astonishing. These cases show that individual or few publications with fabricated data is impervious to detection, but when a series of such faked results is available, it cannot dodge the function of reviewing eventually. The story of Hwang Woo-Suk will forever remain a quintessential pitfall of scientific corruption. The way the purported creation of human stem cell deceived one of the leading journals in the world will be a scientific monument. What could more exemplify breaching ethical standards in human experimentation at the highest level than by He Jiankui’s creation of gene-edited babies? These are the chronicles in the science hall of shame.

show abstract

Section: Bones Of Contentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The making of scientific ethics – lessons from unethical conducts

Lalchhandama¹

2020

Sci Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30,31 Reasons for patient discontinuation and outcomes of patients lost to follow-up were also not clearly identified. 32 The method of stratification and randomization of patients has also been questioned because discrepancies in the statistical reporting and analyses have been ascertained, and the authors' 26 own corrections to Table 3 in the study render the overall protective effect of combination therapy statistically insignificant. 26,33 We have some other concerns regarding the COOPERATE study.…”

Section: Pathophysiologic Characteristics and Rationale Behind Dual Bmentioning

confidence: 99%