Reacción a "Reliability problems detected in hundreds of studies on a type of stroke in animal models"

This is a high-quality study. It is an observational and descriptive review of publications in the field of basic research on subarachnoid hemorrhage. It detects a significant percentage of articles (around 40%) with duplicate images within the same publication, repeated in different studies, or with other errors that suggest a lack of rigor or even possible fraud. The methodology used to identify and classify these cases is described in detail, and the authors acknowledge the inherent limitations of the analysis, which likely underestimates the true extent of the problem.

These findings call into question the validity of a substantial portion of the scientific literature. In recent decades, the number of published articles has grown exponentially, but many do not provide solid knowledge or contribute significantly to biomedical advancement or the development of effective treatments.

[Regarding potential limitations] The study focuses exclusively on experimental, not clinical, studies, so it is unknown whether the frequency of errors is comparable in clinical research. However, the authors mention that similar methodological problems have been described in other areas, including research with patients.