3 ms·

Yeah, they seem to have been quite sloppy with these vignettes. Thought note that in the situation of the mislabeled real case, the formal solution is could be

Yeah, they seem to have been quite sloppy with these vignettes. Thought note that in the situation of the mislabeled real case, the formal solution is could be a retraction of the entire highlight article since it is against the (poorly implemented) policy to have a real case study. Don't know how patient consent for being used in a case study works, did this author get a perpetual license, did they just copy something from another article they wrote, or from an article someone else wrote?

smelendez 8mo ago
You can see the full article here: https://www.cpsp.cps.ca/uploads/publications/pxy155-Teething.pdf https://www.cpsp.cps.ca/uploads/publications/pxy155-Teething... It looks like it has a short intro paragraph that talks about a specific case with no identifying details (beyond "a previously healthy 4-month-old boy"), citing this report by other doctors: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27503268/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27503268/ followed by further discussions of physician reports and survey data. The correction is explicitly listed as applying to that article (https://academic.oup.com/pch/article-abstract/24/2/132/5164289?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/pch/article-abstract/24/2/132/51642...), which itself seems false since that article doesn't seem to include a fictional vignette.