Two studies have recently become very controversial, receiving backlash have produced astounding results and altered the course of research into the coronavirus crisis. Published in two renowned scientific journals, these two studies were retracted on Thursday amid scrutiny of the data underlying the paper.
It was the authors themselves who requested the scientific journals to retract their studies published last month. They both used data from a vast international database of patient medical records that few experts ever heard.
The one published in The Lancet raised alarms about the safety of the hydroxychloroquine. While the other study found that some blood pressure medication did not increase the risk of COVID-19 and might even be protective, but because of questions on the data that the authors cannot verify, they decided to retract their studies from the two medical journals.
The Implications of the Retractions on the State of Scientific Research
The retractions may have positive implications into the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. It also raises troubling questions on the state of scientific research during this pandemic. Thousands of papers are being rushed online sites and journals with little to no peer review.
That concerns most critics that the long-held standards of even the most discerning journals are slowly fading as they face pressure to vet and disseminate new scientific reports rapidly.
Dr. Mandep Mehra, the lead author of the studies told the New York Times, "it is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute to this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use."
"For that, and for all the disruptions - both directly and indirectly - I am truly sorry."
Due to the paper on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine published in late May in The Lancet, clinical trials were halted worldwide, and alarmed investigators immediately began safety reviews. But questions arose because of the irregularities on the data set used in the analysis as well as in Dr. Mehra's previous study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
How Did Researchers Have the Data?
The data used in both research came from Surgispshere, which claims to have granular patient-level information shared by 1,200 hospitals and health facilities on six continents. Its founder and chief executive, Dr. Desai, was also listed as an author on both papers.
Dr. Mehra and Dr. Deasai met through one of the co-authors who told him about the existence of an extensive private database of patient medical records compiled by the Surgisphere.
Many researchers were amazed to find that such a database exists or that gathering and analyzing thousands of medical records on multiple continents was done quickly. Dr. Desai vigorously defended the Surgisphere database, saying that because he is bound to secrecy of data with the hundreds of hospitals that are his clients, he cannot show anyone the raw data from his registry.
The controversy has brought close scrutiny to a small company employing not more than a dozen employees, yet was able to gather such enormous data registry containing detailed medical information from patients around the globe.
![Sat-Nav in Space: Best Route Between Two Worlds Calculated Using 'Knot Theory' [Study]](https://1721181113.rsc.cdn77.org/data/thumbs/full/53194/258/146/50/40/sat-nav-in-space-best-route-between-two-worlds-calculated-using-knot-theory-study.png)
