Reason for withdrawal from publication
23/08/16 This review has been withdrawn due to serious concerns over the validity of included studies.
The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Feedback
Feedback from Dr Eric Leskowitz, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, 27 September 2015
Summary
Comment: The key points we make relate to the questionable validity of Wirth’s research studies.
• Lack of evidence that research protocol was followed.
Our own long‐term investigation of Wirth’s TT studies found no evidence that any of his TT studies were ever conducted as described, with respect to:
‐ confirming the participation and identity of any study subjects.
‐ listing the locations of study site(s)
‐ identifying the trained TT practitioners
‐ authenticating the collaborating physicians and co‐authors (apart from one doctor who retracted his participation in the study after initial publication)
‐ proving the existence of any raw data records.
‐ inability to perform independent statistical analysis of raw data.
• Clear evidence of active fraud.
We found proof that during the period of Wirth’s supposed TT research:
He and fellow student Josef Horvath were co‐conspirators, actively perpetrating fraud, deception, identity theft, and other crimes for which they served prison sentences.
This conspiracy predated graduate school (where JS mentored them) and continued through and beyond the time of Wirth’s TT articles.
Horvath misrepresented himself as “Dr. James Royce” to obtain photographs of wounds (which may have been the photos included in Wirth’s articles).
Horvath forced employees to submit to punch biopsy wounds on their arms (which were similar to the wounds reported in Wirth’s articles).
• Potential for misinterpretation of review
Unfortunately, Mathuna & Ashford’s review gives the appearance of validating Wirth’s TT studies. But if the studies are worthless, as we believe, this would be a great disservice to all. The research community might be better served if this review were amended with a strong disclaimer, or retracted with the above explanations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reply
Dónal O'Mathúna, Author
Dr Eric Leskowitz has provided feedback which adds further serious concerns about the studies by Wirth et al. which are the only included studies in this Cochrane review. Leskowitz and colleagues have provided a detailed account of their concerns and their exhaustive efforts to determine whether or not all of Wirth’s studies took place, and whether there is evidence of fraud in those that did. When carrying out the initial Cochrane review, we expressed concerns about the lack of clarity in Wirth’s protocol (especially the intervention that was described as ‘therapeutic touch), missing data, and other details from some of the studies. This led us to attempt to contact Wirth, but without a response, just as happened with Leskovitz. Some of the concerns noted by Leskovitz were raised in Flamm 2005, which is cited in the Cochrane review. While concerns and questions were raised when the review was first conducted, it was difficult to know how best to respond since the studies were published in peer‐reviewed journals. Therefore, we decided to include the studies in the Cochrane review.
However, Leskovitz and colleagues have provided additional evidence from their extensive investigations which have led us to come to a different conclusion. Their evidence supports the allegations of fraud and makes it more reasonable to question whether all these studies took place. As a result, we have decided that we will update the review and republish it with the Wirth et al. studies excluded from the analysis. The review will then be an empty review. In this planned update a more detailed explanation will be provided to explain why we have come to this conclusion.
Contributors
Dr Eric Leskowitz, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. Dr Dónal O'Mathúna, Author
What's new
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 23 August 2016 | Amended | Review withdrawn due to serious concerns over the validity of included studies. |
History
Protocol first published: Issue 4, 1998 Review first published: Issue 4, 2003
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 3 May 2016 | New citation required but conclusions have not changed | New citation, feedback added and responded to. |
| 31 March 2016 | Feedback has been incorporated | Feedback and review author response included in the review. |
| 22 April 2014 | New citation required but conclusions have not changed | Conclusions not changed |
| 22 April 2014 | New search has been performed | Fifth update, new search, no new studies identified. |
| 25 April 2012 | New citation required but conclusions have not changed | Fourth update. The authors' conclusions remain unchanged. |
| 2 June 2010 | New search has been performed | For this third update, a new search was conducted. No new studies were identified. Risk of bias tables were completed. The authors' conclusions remain unchanged. |
| 23 July 2008 | Amended | Converted to new review format. |
| 26 November 2007 | New search has been performed | For this second update, a new search strategy was used and carried out in November 2007. No new studies were identified.The authors' conclusions remain unchanged. |
| 16 January 2006 | New search has been performed | For the first update, new searches were carried out in January 2006. Two new studies were excluded from the review. The authors' conclusions remain unchanged. |
| 19 August 2003 | New citation required and conclusions have changed | Substantive amendment. This review, with 4 included trials, was originally published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003. |
Sources of support
Internal sources
Mount Carmel College of Nursing, USA.
Faculty of Health and Community Care, University of Central England, UK.
School of Nursing, Dublin City University, Ireland.
External sources
The National Institue for Health Research (NIHR) is the sole funder of the Cochrane Wounds Group, UK.
Withdrawn from publication for reasons stated in the review