Research FAIL

Dear Dr. G,

We noticed that you flipped the script on the SFC (Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate) and FP (Fluticasone Propionate) randomized populations in Tables 1 and 2, what's up with that?

Sincerely,

Research FAIL

Erratum published for original study (J Glaucoma. 2008 Apr-May;17(3):211-6) in August 2010 (J Glaucoma. 2010 Aug;19(6):423).

Correction published 2 years and 3 months after original study was published.

Total # of errors in this study: 12 in table 1 alone

Geewhiz! The 30+ researchers in this study must've had a LOT going on for not noticing that the 1st table in their study had 12 errors. This part of a clinical trial is supposed to be the easy part. Scares me to think what their discussion & conclusion look like. Yikes! EPIC research FAIL.

Dr. B,

Here is a list of all the errors that I found in Table 1: 

1.       Under the BIM column (sex), the number of participants (male/female) do not add up to the amount of participants in the BIM treatment group (132+157=289 NOT 265)

2.       Under the TIM column (sex), the number of participants (male/female) do not add up to the amount of participants in the TIM treatment group (140+146 = 286 NOT 263)

3.       When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of females in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up  (Female: 286+132+140= 558 NOT 588)

4.       When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of males in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up  (Male: 247+157+146 =550 NOT 503)

5.       Under Race, when the number of all participants are summed up (excluding non-black), the sum does not equal the overall participant number of 1061 (774 + 14 + 92 + 176 = 1056 NOT 1061)

6.       When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of light iris colors in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up (278 + 117 + 128 = 523 NOT 452)

7.       When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of dark iris colors in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up (255 + 148 + 135 = 538 NOT 261)

8.       when the percentages of the participants' eye colors)were added up, it does not equal 100%, not even close (42.6%+24.6%=67.2% NOT 100%)

9.       Another percentage error is found in the TIM column for Glaucoma diagnosis, does not equal/approach 100% (54.8%+54.8%+2.3%=111.9%)

10.   Under the TIM column (Glaucoma diagnosis), the number of participants do not add up to the amount of participants in the TIM treatment group  (144 + 144 + 6 = 294 NOT 263)

11.   When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of glaucoma diagnoses in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up for Ocular hypertension OU (228 + 113 + 144 = 485 NOT 585)

12.   When the number of participants were added up for the overall number of glaucoma diagnoses in all treatment groups, the sum does not add up for Glaucoma OU (292 + 149 + 144 = 585 NOT 454)

Sincerely,

Research FAIL

"...wasn’t it possible... that drug companies were carefully selecting the topics of their studies—for example, comparing their new drugs against those already known to be inferior to others on the market—so that they were ahead of the game even before the data juggling began?

“Maybe sometimes it’s the questions that are biased, not the answers...”