title: [What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology].
abstract: In February 2009 a major case of scientific misconduct was discovered. The American pain researcher Dr. S. Reuben had published 21 papers over a period of 15 years that were found to be fraudulent. Suddenly many advances in postoperative pain therapy which had been assumed to be correct seemed questionable. In this review article the lessons which can be learnt from this case are described. This review also reveals that it is almost impossible for reviewers or readers of scientific journals to detect scientific fraud. However, several warning signs can be identified that might be useful when reading clinical papers. In retrospect many of these signs were detectable in Reuben's studies. Based on the fraudulent papers of Reuben it will be shown how and to what extent falsified results can affect other types of literature, such as practice guidelines, meta-analyses, review articles and oral presentations.
authors.affiliation: Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Zentrum Operative Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg.
authors.forename: H L
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Rittner
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kranke
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schäfer
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Roewer
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Brack
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000592:standards; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000188:drug therapy*; D010380:Peer Review / Q000592:standards; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012107:Research Design; D015871:Scientific Misconduct; D016896:Treatment Outcome