You can easily search this on a search engine, as i just did. It’s really easy.
The decision to retract was made due to two major issues.
Reliability of the data and choice of the data. The Belgian dataset in particular was found to be unreliable, based on estimates.
The assumption that all patients that entered the clinic were being treated the same pharmacologically was incorrect.
The above two issues meant that the Editor-in-Chief found the conclusions of the article to be unreliable and therefore the article needed to be retracted.
You can easily search this on a search engine, as i just did. It’s really easy.
The decision to retract was made due to two major issues. 1. Reliability of the data and choice of the data. The Belgian dataset in particular was found to be unreliable, based on estimates.
The assumption that all patients that entered the clinic were being treated the same pharmacologically was incorrect.
The above two issues meant that the Editor-in-Chief found the conclusions of the article to be unreliable and therefore the article needed to be retracted.
You can easily search this on a search engine, as i just did. It’s really easy.
[The decision to retract was made due to two major issues. 1. Reliability of the data and choice of the data. The Belgian dataset in particular was found to be unreliable, based on estimates.
The assumption that all patients that entered the clinic were being treated the same pharmacologically was incorrect.
The above two issues meant that the Editor-in-Chief found the conclusions of the article to be unrelia](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332224012381)