Retraction and republication—ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China from 2001 to 2011 (the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study): a retrospective analysis of hospital data

On June 24, 2014, the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study was published online by The Lancet.¹ On Aug 14, the authors drew our attention to a miscalculation in the weight of one of the urban areas in the study, affecting the national estimates for rates of hospital admission, use of aspirin, clopidogrel, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention, proportion of patients not receiving reperfusion, median length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, outcomes, and characteristics of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although the overall message of the study did not change, corrections were necessary in the findings section of the summary, the methods and results sections of the Article, figures 2, 3, and 4, both tables, and the appendix.

Regrettably, mistakes in calculations can happen. When they do it is important to correct the scientific record promptly, fully, and transparently. To ensure accuracy and validity of the changes as well as a correct and robust manuscript that can inform future clinical care, we carried out further peer review of the corrected paper. The clinical and statistical reviewers confirmed the appropriateness of the changes, and stated a belief that the changes, albeit extensive, made no difference to the interpretation of the findings.

Because of the extent of the changes and based on the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidelines, which state that “Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (eg, data fabrication) or honest error”, we now retract the previous version and republish the corrected version of the paper in this issue.² The old version will be added to a webappendix attached to the new version and will be marked as retracted. Additionally, the Comment discussing the study that was published online has been corrected to reflect the changes in the Article, in the online and accompanying print version.³

The Editors of The Lancet

The Lancet, London EC2Y 5AS, UK