RETRACTED: Post–COVID-19 Condition in Children, 2023, Hahn et al

Original article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2809315

Retraction notice: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2822489

Article's conclusion —

Retraction following concerns raised —

 

interesting. These things seem pretty significant. I wonder how it came about? - are we assuming that someone else spotted it and wrote to them, but then such a reviewer would need to have been able to access the raw data?

I had a quick look at the conclusion/discussion of the original to see what recommendations were made on the basis of the finding.

Does the mention of additional research is required into the neurobehavioural sequelae of covid mean they are suggesting that 'as we found none actually got PCC it's a behavioural thing' or am I misinterpreting this?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1825976910859678064


RETRACTION: The @JAMAPediatrics study claiming “strikingly low” incidence of Long Covid (PCC) in kids, retracted due to multiple errors whereby incidence was underestimated by a factor over 2.5. But also it’s methodologically completely invalid anyway.

 

The retraction letter does not address any of the substantive and invalidating concerns we raised (all the way to the VP of JAMA Network), but instead points to NEW ADDITIONAL errors in coding that invalidate the work. Are the authors trying to save face?

/4

 

The original thread from Blake Murdoch dissecting the study
https://twitter.com/user/status/1752105777136066715

 

Another in same vein
https://twitter.com/user/status/1752582003818725649


That's how bad some research on paediatric #LongCOVID is.

In our letter to @JAMAPediatrics we point to obvious & fundamental errors in paper which claims that Post Covid Condition in kids is "strikingly low"

Those errors are so egregious, they should warrant a retraction


1/

 

thanks for the additional info. so there were letters that prompted a closer look to take place.

that seems feasible, I'm also slowly learning that the list of what actually prompts 'retraction' vs doesn't can seem to a layperson somewhat eccentric to 'whether it matters' etc

 

Sadly the critique is behind a pay wall when the published article wasn't .
Seems like the publishers kind of knew it was poor .

 

They're clearly amateurs and not well-connected, though. Everyone knows that when you get caught like this you treat your critics as hostile, accuse them of all sorts of dirty things, work reporters and editors behind the scenes and abuse positions of authority to get your way.

They could have learned from the pros. Tsk tsk.