Citing retracted papers has a negative domino effect on science, education, and society

Once an academic paper is retracted, it is by no means certain it will not go on being cited. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Judit Dobránszki and Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti use three key examples to demonstrate how the continued citation of retracted papers can lead to the proliferation of erroneous literature, mislead young academics and cause confusion among researchers as to the veracity of scientific claims. Most damagingly, it can undermine the credibility of science and public trust in research. Retracted papers should not be cited and it is the responsibility of researchers, editorial teams and publishers to guard against this happening

The main concerns of European anaesthesiology postgraduate trainees: A European survey

This is the first study intended to identify the European anaesthesiology trainees' main concerns, to initiate a process of improvement of the training in anaesthesiology by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). The authors developed an electronic survey which addressed seven different concerns: autonomy transition, technical skills, exchange programs, residency costs, residency workload, employment prospects and educational contents/preparation for the European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EDAIC). The survey was disseminated by email to all anaesthesiology trainees registered in ESA and all European National Societies were asked to distribute the survey to their graduating trainees. 665 trainees initiated the survey with a completion rate of 54.6%. The trainees' main concerns were in descending order: educational contents, residency costs, employment prospects, residency workload, exchange programs, technical skills and autonomy transition. This report analyzes the three main concerns in more detail. 68% of respondents were unaware of the existence of the ESA e-learning platform. Other means to improve the preparation for the EDAIC such as a multiple-choice questions book should be developed. The main reason for not becoming an ESA Trainee member was the associated cost and 68% of respondents gave up activities or opportunities during their residency due to economic constraints; 56% of respondents considered emigrating for economic reasons and 28% elected Northern/Central Europe. The results of the present survey may provide additional background information for the development of specific improvements in strategies for training in anaesthesiology. (c) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center, multinational study on the safety and efficacy of 6% Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) sOlution versus an Electrolyte solutioN In patients undergoing eleCtive abdominal Surgery:study protocol for the PHOENICS study

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are used for volume therapy to treat hypovolemia due to acute blood loss and to maintain hemodynamic stability. This study was requested by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide more evidence on the long-term safety and efficacy of HES solutions in the perioperative setting. METHODS: PHOENICS is a randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center, multinational phase IV (IIIb) study with two parallel groups to investigate non-inferiority regarding the safety of a 6% HES 130 solution (Volulyte 6%, Fresenius Kabi, Germany) compared with a crystalloid solution (Ionolyte, Fresenius Kabi, Germany) for infusion in patients with acute blood loss during elective abdominal surgery. A total of 2280 eligible patients (male and female patients willing to participate, with expected blood loss ≥ 500 ml, aged > 40 and ≤ 85 years, and ASA Physical status II–III) are randomly assigned to receive either HES or crystalloid solution for the treatment of hypovolemia due to surgery-induced acute blood loss in hospitals in up to 11 European countries. The dosing of investigational products (IP) is individualized to patients’ volume needs and guided by a volume algorithm. Patients are treated with IP for maximally 24 h or until the maximum daily dose of 30 ml/kg body weight is reached. The primary endpoint is the treatment group mean difference in the change from the pre-operative baseline value in cystatin-C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), to the eGFR value calculated from the highest cystatin-C level measured during post-operative days 1-3. Further safety and efficacy parameters include, e.g., combined mortality/major post-operative complications until day 90, renal function, coagulation, inflammation, hemodynamic variables, hospital length of stay, major post-operative complications, and 28-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. DISCUSSION: The study will provide important information on the long-term safety and efficacy of HES 130/0.4 when administered according to the approved European product information. The results will be relevant for volume therapy of surgical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2016-002162-30. ClinicalTrials.govNCT0327854

Withdrawal-associated injury site pain (WISP): a descriptive case series of an opioid cessation phenomenon.

Withdrawal pain can be a barrier to opioid cessation. Yet, little is known about old injury site pain in this context. We conducted an exploratory mixed-methods descriptive case series using a web-based survey and in-person interviews with adults recruited from pain and addiction treatment and research settings. We included individuals who self-reported a past significant injury that was healed and pain-free before the initiation of opioids, which then became temporarily painful upon opioid cessation-a phenomenon we have named withdrawal-associated injury site pain (WISP). Screening identified WISP in 47 people, of whom 34 (72%) completed the descriptive survey, including 21 who completed qualitative interviews. Recalled pain severity scores for WISP were typically high (median: 8/10; interquartile range [IQR]: 2), emotionally and physically aversive, and took approximately 2 weeks to resolve (median: 14; IQR: 24 days). Withdrawal-associated injury site pain intensity was typically slightly less than participants' original injury pain (median: 10/10; IQR: 3), and more painful than other generalized withdrawal symptoms which also lasted approximately 2 weeks (median: 13; IQR: 25 days). Fifteen surveyed participants (44%) reported returning to opioid use because of WISP in the past. Participants developed theories about the etiology of WISP, including that the pain is the brain's way of communicating a desire for opioids. This research represents the first known documentation that previously healed, and pain-free injury sites can temporarily become painful again during opioid withdrawal, an experience which may be a barrier to opioid cessation, and a contributor to opioid reinitiation