Background: Systematic reviews may rely on study data published in peer-reviewed journals. A good international reputation and a high impact factor of a journal may promise that the article contains correct and verified data. We conducted a systematic review on drug intervention in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma and included one study for which we found some inconsistencies within the main report published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology (impact > 17).
Methods: I found that it was difficult or not possible to reproduce the results of the statistical analyses of the included study. I did not know if I just needed help to understand the data better, whether I faced minor typing errors, or if I had discovered flaws serious enough to change the conclusion of the study. Therefore, I located the authors and asked them to reply to my inquiries by email.
Results: I am very grateful to the authors for leaving room for my doubts. The authors took great efforts to re-evaluate the analyses thoroughly. Finally, the resulting changes were published as an erratum, which was attached to the online version of the article. The difference of overall survival between the treatment groups was not significant as opposed to the earlier version.
Conclusions: The inquiry of authors to explain their analyses is important and can have an impact on the study conclusion and possibly the treatment of patients. Respectful appreciation of the work achieved by the authors is a prerequisite. Highly skilled professional scientists may reply appropriately and pave the way effectively for clearing the data.