Retraction note: Clinical analysis of colistin sulfate in the treatment of pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

Abstract

In this retraction note, we describe the World Journal of Clinical Cases (WJCC) Editorial Office’s decision and reason for retracting an article published in WJCC, volume 12, issue 13.

Core Tip: A reader found that an article published in World Journal of Clinical Cases (WJCC) is fraught with drawbacks. After careful evaluation, the WJCC Editorial Office decided to retract this article.

RETRACTION NOTE

Retraction note: Xu HC, Cui Y, Wang XY, Wu HB, Li W, Wang D, Lin N, Lin L, Zhang YH. Clinical analysis of colistin sulfate in the treatment of pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(13): 2173-2181 PMID: 38808336 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i13.2173. The online version of the original article can be found at https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i13/2173.htm.

This article[1] has been retracted, as many drawbacks was found by a reader after its publication.

The Editorial Office of World Journal of Clinical Cases (WJCC) recently received a letter from a reader sensibly outlining many drawbacks in the article, raising concerns about the quality of the study. For example, the reader pointed out “When I read this article, I found endless errors, poor logical structure, and stacked content, as well as incomplete, inconsistent, and contradictory description and results in this paper.”, e.g., (1) “In this article, the authors wrote that ‘Polymyxin is a polypeptide antibiotic obtained from …. The components are named A, B, C, D, and E5 according to their chemical structures’.” The reader pointed out that “Polymyxins are a group of antibiotics, named A, B, C, D, E, and so on, but not A, B, C, D, and E5.”; (2) “In this article, the authors wrote that ‘This is a retrospective study involving 105 patients with pneumonia caused by XDR-GN who were admitted to … between August 2020 and June 2022’.” The reader pointed out that “However, in the Abstract, Treatment methods, and Results sections, only 54 patients were included in this study, and there is not any description or explanation of the exclusion of other 51 patients.”; and (3) “In this article, the authors wrote that ‘In the research group, 28 patients were treated with sulfate polymyxin ... The control group of 26 patients received the standard dosage of another antibiotic (tigecycline). To avoid serious side effects caused by inhaled polymyxin B, inhaled glucocorticoids and bronchodilators were administered 30 min before treatment…’. The reader pointed out the “Inconsistent content. Here, the authors mention that, the patients in the control group received standard dosage tigecycline, while in the Abstract, it says ‘The control group consisted of 26 patients who received standard dosages of other antibiotics (including sulbactam sodium for injection, cefoperazone sodium sulbactam for injection, tigecycline, meropenem, or vaborbactam).’ And in the General patient information section, ‘The control group of 26 patients was treated with tigecycline in combination with anti-infective therapy, of which 6 were administered intravenous medication, 10 were administered nebulized medication, and 10 were administered a combination of intravenous and nebulized medications. The duration of antibiotic medication was 3–55 (11.43 ± 4.98) d.’; etc.

In response, the WJCC Editorial Office conducted an investigation and found that this article is indeed fraught with drawbacks, which may have misled readers and affected the quality of the content published in WJCC. When the WJCC Editorial Office contacted the authors concerning this issue, the Corresponding Author provided a timely response as follows: “Readers have raised doubts about the specific details of our article, which is what we really hope to see. Perhaps due to the fact that the authors are clinical workers and lack a certain level of logical coherence in the wording and writing of the article, readers may have a poor reading experience with the article.” The Corresponding Author's response agrees with our investigation conclusions regarding drawbacks and mistakes in their article.

In summary, after careful consideration, the WJCC Editorial Office has made the final decision to retract this published article in order to safeguard the overall quality of the content published in WJCC.