Risk factors for hip fracture among elderly patients with Parkinson‚Äôs disease
Authors: K Oizumi
M Kaji
Y Sato
T Tsuru
Journal: Journal of the Neurological Sciences (2001)
Discipline: NEUROSCIENCE & BEHAVIOR
Keywords: hip fracture; Parkinson's disease; elderly patients; body mass index; bone mineral density

Abstract:  Incidence of hip fracture among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is high, especially in elderly women. To determine effects of various factors on hip fracture risk, we prospectively studied fractures in a cohort of 115 elderly patients of both genders with PD (46 men, 69 women; mean age, 71.9 years) for 1 year. At baseline, we recorded body mass index (BMI), Hoehn and Yahr stage, and postmenopausal interval, and also measured bone mineral density (BMD) and serum concentrations of ionized calcium, intact parathyroid hormone (PTH), pyridinoline cross-linked carboxyterminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP; a bone resorption marker), and 25-hydroxyvitamin (25-OHD). During the year hip fractures occurred in 18 patients (2 male and 16 female). We compared baseline variables between patients with and without hip fracture. PD patients with decreased BMI, lower BMD, and low concentrations of serum ionized calcium, and 25-OHD (mean 4.0 ng/ml) with compensatory hyperparathyroidsim had increased risk of hip fracture. Female PD patients with long postmenopausal intervals also had increased hip fracture risk. BMI, illness duration, postmenopausal intervals, Hoehn and Yahr stage, 25-OHD, PTH, calcium, and ICTP were determinants of BMD in patients with fracture. Elderly PD patients with low BMI, low BMD, and serum 25-OHD concentrations &lt; or =5 ng/ml with secondary hyperparathyroidism have increased risk of hip fracture, as do female PD patients with long postmenopausal intervals. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper should be retracted. There is a context of multiple ( 90) retractions of work by this group of researchers for a wide range of reasons that include fabrication, authorship misconduct, duplicate data reporting, plagiarism, unethical research practices, unresolved concerns about data integrity and scientific misconduct (http: retractionwatch.com the-retraction-watch-leaderboard ). The journal and its publisher were notified about the concerns with this paper in May 2018 Concerns Ethical oversight The study was reported to be approved by the Futase institutional ethics committee. However, recent retractions of papers by Dr Sato and colleagues by Stroke and Bone indicate that Futase Hospital did not have an ethics committee at the time the work reported in J Neurol Sci was supposedly conducted. Thus, this work is unethical. Implausible participant recruitment The site at which the study was conducted is not stated. Presumably it was Futase Social Insurance Hospital. That institution has only 55 beds and 4 physicians. It is highly implausible that recruitment of a cohort of 115 patients 65y old with Parkinsonu2019s disease could be recruited at such a small institution. Study conduct It is stated that the hormonal analyses were performed at the u201cCreative Research Hormone Reference Laboratory at Kurume Universityu201d. Yet in J Neurol Sci 223(2):107-12, 2004 it is stated that the Creative Research Hormone Reference Laboratory is located at the Futase Social Insurance Hospital. These statements are incompatible. Implausible data During 1 year of observation, 16 hip fractures occurred, yet only 2 other non-vertebral fractures occurred. This high ratio of hip to other non-vertebral fractures is wholly implausible. In table 1, the calculated age of menopause in the controls is 56.1y (age 72.0 - interval since menopause 15.9), in the non-fracture group is 54.8y (70.7-15.9) and in the fracture group is 53.1y (73.9-20.8). Each of the values is wholly implausible, as the median age of menopause in Japan is 50y (J Atheroscler Thromb. 2013;20:161-169) Data errors In the text, it is stated that 106 participants completed the study (42 men, 64 women). In Table 1, it is stated that 104 participants completed the study (40 men, 64 women). In the Abstract, the mean age of the 115 participants who were recruited to the study is stated to be 71.9y. In the text, the mean age of the 106 who completed the study is stated to be exactly the same, 71.9y. These data are wholly implausible. Impossible data As above, in the text, the mean age of the participants with Parkinsonu2019s disease is stated to be 71.9y. However, the calculated mean age of the participants with Parkinsonu2019s disease using the subgroups data in Table 1 = 69.9y. Thus 18 x 73.9 + 86 x 70.7 divided by 104 = 69.9y. These data are mathematically impossible. Extensive data duplication and self-plagiarism Please compare the Results section of this paper with the Results section of Sato et al, J Neurol Sci 2004;223:107-12 a. Data duplication In Tables 1 and 2 in the 2004 paper, the mean values of several variables in the control group and the Alzheimeru2019s disease non-fracture group are identical to those in the control group and the Parkinsonu2019s disease non-fracture group, respectively, in Table 2 in the 2001 paper  Data are mean u00b1 SD * results reported in the paper as meq L, data converted to mmol L (1 meq L = 0.5mmol L) It is simply not possible that results for all of these variables would be identical in groups with different numbers of participants, and of different ages, gender composition and disease. b. Self-plagiarism Compare the Introduction and Discussion sections of this paper with those of Sato et al, J Neurol Sci 2004;223:107-12. Software designed to assess textual similarities (http: splat.cs.arizona.edu ) reveals that 41% of the sentences in the Introduction and Discussion sections of the 2004 paper shared at least 50% of the words with a sentence in the 2001 paper. , 
 On 14 June 2020 the publisher informed us that this paper was to be retracted. 9 months later, it has not been. it has been cited 106 times (Scopus). Lengthy delays in publication of retraction notices are not in the best interests of readers. , 
 On 14 June 2020 the publisher informed us that this paper was to be retracted. 9 months later, it has not been. It has been cited 69 times (Scopus). Lengthy delays in publication of retraction notices are not in the best interests of readers. , 
 It is now 21 months since Elsevier communicated, via COPE, its undertaking to retract this paper. Recent requests for an update on the retraction to Elsevier, COPE, and the journal did not receive a response. The society associated with the journal, the World Federation of Neurology, responded but was unable to provide any information. ,