Modelo dos de prea

 not something that the readers would be able to discern given the information provided in the published article.”

And, they said, “it appears that the way these results are reported is different for the same analyses across different display figures. There is no scientific justification for this.”

Madhu Latha Karra, of Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad and the corresponding author of the paper, responded with 15 pages of point-by-point counterarguments, and urged the editors not to retract the paper. But earlier this week, the journal did so:

After publication concerns were raised about several aspects of the study, in particular that at baseline there are large differences in the parameters measured indicating that randomisation may not have been performed correctly. Post-publication peer review has confirmed that the alternative allocation method used in this study is not appropriate for randomised clinical trials. This means that the patients were not correctly randomised and therefore the differences in outcome seen between the two arms of the study cannot be attributed to the Pulse D therapy. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the conclusions of this study.

Maheshwar Lakkireddy, R. D. Malathi, Madhu Latha Karra, Ragini, Sangeetha Chinapaka, and K. S. S. Sai Baba disagree with this retraction. Srikanth Goud Gadiga, I. S. S. V. Prasad Murthy Raju, and Manohar Kandakatla have not re