ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Case Report
RETRACTED: 

Case Report: Abdominal perforation by ureteric stenting

[version 1; peer review: retracted]
PUBLISHED 06 Jan 2016

Retraction

Zukiwskyj M and Alexander S. RETRACTED: Case Report: Abdominal perforation by ureteric stenting [version 1; referees: retracted] F1000Research 2016, 5:25

This article has been retracted. Although the patient originally ...

Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Retraction 

Zukiwskyj M and Alexander S. RETRACTED: Case Report: Abdominal perforation by ureteric stenting [version 1; referees: retracted] F1000Research 2016, 5:25

This article has been retracted. Although the patient originally gave verbal consent for publication, this was later withdrawn; miscommunication between the authors meant that the article was published without written consent. The content of the article has been removed in order to protect the patient’s confidentiality.

Keywords

ureteric stent, perforation, malposition, complication, abdominal

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Jan 2016
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Zukiwskyj M and Alexander S. RETRACTED: Case Report: Abdominal perforation by ureteric stenting [version 1; peer review: retracted]. F1000Research 2016, 5:25 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7677.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.