Fraud Case Rocks Anesthesiology Community
 

For those who have followed Scott S. Reuben, work. This is very shameful!

http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/in...ticle_id=12634


MsL

OMG is all i have to say !!!!!

It's worse than shameful. It calls into question the very essence of peer reviewed publications, suggesting that a good name alone will get you published. (One can only hope that it was the editors, ratherr than the reviewers who were taken in by this fraud. God help us if articles are commonly sent out for review in an "un-blinded" fashion.) This from a follow up article to the one above:

ANESTHOLOGY NEWS, ISSUE: 3/2009 | VOLUME: 35:3

Routine Audit Uncovered Reuben Fraud

Paul F. White, PhD, MD, the Margaret Milam McDermott distinguished chair in anesthesiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, called the Reuben case “unprecedented in our specialty.” Dr. White, an editor of Anesthesia and Analgesia, said that given the retracted (and likely-to-be withdrawn) papers and those that are unsullied by the affair, practitioners of multimodal analgesia are now confronted with several significant problems.

* * *

Because of the layered nature of scientific research and publishing, the scandal “compromises every meta-analysis, editorial, systematic review of analgesic trials”—as well as every lecture and continuing education course—that cited the fraudulent findings, added Dr. White, a member of the editorial board of Anesthesiology News. “Clearly, it’s time get back to the hard work of conducting clinical analgesic studies to address important issues in perioperative pain management and patient outcomes.”

http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/in...ticle_id=12641

Think of this guy as the Bernie Madoff of academic medical publishing.

And tragically for us, Dr. Reuben was the co-author of a number of articles on RSD & Surgery that may be withdrawn, even though the work on continuous regional anesthisia - from which a number of us have benefited - has been replicated in other studues and the contributions of his coauthors have not been called into question.

Mike

Baystate Medical pain clinic is my second home. I've been been going there since 1999. Thank God I only saw this Dr. once. Its scary to think what harm he has caused. What even scares me more is that the doc that did my hip replacement which led to the RSD, his name is on one of those publications. The pain clinic at Baystate is a great clinic. There are many very caring nurses and Drs. that have helped me through this nightmare. I pray that the other docs are not like him and he is let go right away. This clinic helps alot of people with RSD and its a shame he has most likley ruined Baystates reputation and all the hard work they do everyday.

Sue K

Sue -

I am so sorry. Of course all of the stories have emphasised that none of Dr. Reuban's coauthors were involved in the fraud, for whatever that's worth.

And now in this morning's New York Times, Reuban's lawyer states that Baystate officials “were aware of extenuating circumstances,” whatever that means. The paper then suggests that Reuban may have been beholden to Pfizer with respect to a group of studies (from 2002 -2007) that had nothing to do with his work on continuous regional anesthesia. Yet his clinic is clearly stating that he fabricated his results (but not that of his coauthors) in even two of the CRPS studies. Here's three sentence lead-in to the N.Y. Times story:

March 11, 2009

Doctor Admits Pain Studies Were Frauds, Hospital Says

By GARDINER HARRIS

In what may be among the longest-running and widest-ranging cases of academic fraud, one of the most prolific researchers in anesthesiology has admitted that he fabricated much of the data underlying his research, said a spokeswoman for the hospital where he works.

The researcher, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist in Springfield, Mass., who practiced at Baystate Medical Center, never conducted the clinical trials that he wrote about in 21 journal articles dating from at least 1996, said Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health.

The reliability of dozens more articles he wrote is uncertain, and the common practice — supported by his studies — of giving patients aspirinlike drugs and neuropathic pain medicines after surgery instead of narcotics is now being questioned. . . . [Emphasis added.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/he...0reuben&st=cse

Mike

Hi Mike,

A better word to describe this is "Shocking" and even worse the insidious role that Pfizer has played in this to have their drugs prescribed to pain patients. In light of the fact that this research is a complete lie, it brings into question the use of these drugs for rsd patients.

I was put on Lyrica, it did nothing for my pain and made me very fat and depressed. I still have my celebrex prescription sitting on the shelf, never took that one after reading all the side effects on the product brochure.

This has caused great harm to many patients and it criminal. :mad:

MsL

Neurontin Law Suits
 

A BIT OFF THE SUBJECT PERHAPS, BUT THIS IS BY NO MEANS THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF PFIZER MISLEADING CONSUMERS, THUS PUTTING THEIR SAFETY AT RISK. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS LAW SUITS SURROUNDING THE MARKETING OF NEURONTIN FOR CHRONIC PAIN (AMONG OTHER THINGS) WITHOUT CONDUCTING TESTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS USE FOR THE VARIOUS OFF-LABEL APPLICATIONS THAT PFIZER WAS PROMOTING. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT IS O.K. TO USE DRUGS FOR OFF-LABEL USES, BUT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR DRUG MANUFACTURERS TO PROMOTE ITS USE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT STUDIES. YOU MIGHT JUST WANT TO GOOGLE NEURONTIN LAWSUITS.

[Neurontin is a prescription drug manufactured by Pfizer used to treat post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) and partial seizures in adults and children. For years, Pfizer intentionally and misleadingly promoted the drug for a number of uses for which it had not been approved (called off-label usage) .

Marketing a drug for unapproved uses is illegal - defying FDA regulatory and statutory procedures. In so doing, Pfizer knowingly put patients at risk for harm . Moreover, the company was well aware that Neurontin showed no efficacy for the uses it encouraged. The company is currently embroiled in numerous product liability and personal injury Neurontin lawsuits.]

I agree with MsL, there are big problems ahead. First, let me repeat something from one of the Anesthesia News stories that was posted yesterday:

Because of the layered nature of scientific research and publishing, the scandal “compromises every meta-analysis, editorial, systematic review of analgesic trials”—as well as every lecture and continuing education course—that cited the fraudulent findings, added Dr. White, a member of the editorial board of Anesthesiology News. “Clearly, it’s time get back to the hard work of conducting clinical analgesic studies to address important issues in perioperative pain management and patient outcomes.”

Sort of reminds you of credit default swaps, doesn't it? http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/ref...aps/index.html

Everything all ties together like that. Now, just like the ask about how many more Madoffs there are out there, we wonder how many more Reubans Big Pharma has bequeathed unto us.

So Dubious, you still in favor of "meta-analysis."

And just why the FDA hasn't at any time in the last 50 years attempted to regulate the financial and disclosure issues surrounding the pharmaceutical/researcher relationship - beyond the relatively recent requirement that was imposed not by the FDA, but by the medical journals (NEJM I believe forced the hand of everyone else) to voluntarily state whether the author has any "conflicting interests" in the study - is beyond me.

Mike

Anyone want to take a guess as to how many drugs this could ultimately put in question?

And isn't funny how they (apparently) can't reach an agreement as to who will be the next FDA Commissioner? I'm guessing that it boils down to a power play involving political money, with emphasis on the Mid-Atlantic region. But a guess is all it is.

Mike,

Why are you dragging me into this thread in a negative light? I didn't even post on it till now.

Did I say something to **** you off?

I think his pertinent papers should be recalled if in fact the accusations are correct. I see "junk science" literature all day long and I am here to tell you that there are researchers who have an agenda and get useless ****printed. People are people; less than perfect, so scoundrels exists in all professions. And you can't tell me the "Bar" is white as snow....can you councilor?