Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process
- Edmund Hey, retired paediatricianb,
- Iain Chalmers, director (ichalmers@cochrane.co.uk)a
- a UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG
- b Newcastle upon Tyne
- a NHS Executive, West Midlands Regional Office, Birmingham B16 9PA
- b NHS Executive, South East Regional Office, London W2 3QR
- c Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, London N5 1PB
- Correspondence to: I Chalmers
- Accepted 25 August 2000
On 27 February 1999 the BMJ carried a news item reporting that the government had set up an inquiry into a controlled trial of neonatal ventilatory support undertaken at the North Staffordshire Hospital, in Stoke on Trent, from 1990 to 1993.1 The trial was designed to assess whether continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP) ventilation could reduce the need for, and problems associated with, tracheal intubation and positive pressure ventilation.
Summary points
We believe that almost every statement made about the design, conduct, and reporting of the neonatal continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP) trial in the Griffiths report was ill informed, misguided, or factually wrong. Errors include:
A false assertion that the trial's design had not been subjected to external peer review
A failure to understand the trial's statistical design, as evinced by their erroneous belief that Professor Southall was single handedly responsible for its size and shape
A failure to recognise the expertise of the nurses involved in the study
A false statement that some of the consent forms could not be found
A false statement that it was not possible to be sure who had completed some of these forms
A false statement that there was no way of checking that consent had been obtained properly
An inaccurate statement that the process of consent was not managed consistently and that no system of management or documentation was in place to prove that it was
A false assertion that parents were not given clear opportunities to withdraw their child from the study at any time
A failure to take sufficiently into account evidence showing that parental recall of events in the newborn period can be fallible
An overreliance on the evidence of the small group of parents who asked to testify to the panel at the expense of contemporaneous evidence from …
Correspondence to: R Griffiths
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012