Correction to: Nifurtimox versus benznidazole or placebo for asymptomatic Trypanosoma cruzi infection (Equivalence of Usual Interventions for Trypanosomiasis - EQUITY): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (original) (raw)
Related papers
Correction to: Role of Bempedoic Acid in Clinical Practice
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 2021
u s e , d u p l i c a t i o n , a d a p t a t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , a n d reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The original article has been corrected.
No Study is Ever Flawless: A Scoping Review of Common Errors in Biomedical Manuscripts
Accountability in Research, 2021
We conducted this scoping review of common errors identified by editors and reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Errors includes items that a reviewer or editor might identify as needing correction. The errors were categorized by section of the manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. After screening 87 published studies, 16 papers were selected for data extraction. Of these 16 studies, the most frequently represented disciplines were Medicine (n = 5), Radiology (n = 2), and Psychiatry (n = 2). The most reported common errors included inappropriate study design, inadequate sample size, poor statistical analysis, and unclear and inadequate description of methods. Abstracts not reflecting the content of the paper were the most frequent general common error in biomedical manuscripts. The findings of this study offer one perspective on common errors in biomedical manuscripts and might be a useful guide for novice authors.
PloS one
In an indirect comparison, we found no statistically significant differences in efficacy, serious adverse events, drug related adverse events, drug related serious adverse events, death or selection of viral resistance between E/C/F/TDF and ABC/3TC + DTG in initial therapy. There are numerical errors in the second sentence of the first paragraph in the Results section under the subheading "Virological failure and resistance." The correct sentence is: In GS-US-236-0102, 7% of patients on E/C/F/TDF and 10% of subjects on EFV/FTC/TDF were considered virological failures at week 144, while in SINGLE, rates were 9% and 8% for ABC/ 3TC + DTG and EFV/FTC/TDF, respectively. There are errors in the first two sentences of the Conclusion. The correct sentences are: With the limitation that we did not perform a systematic review we can conclude that: The indirect efficacy comparisons do not show significant differences between E/C/F/TDF and ABC/3TC + DTG. For efficacy, the difference between both regimens at week 48, 96 and 144 were small and not statistically significant; Resistance and all safety results (except for discontinuation due adverse events) also do not show significant differences between the 2 regimens. The captions for Figs 3, 4 and 5 appear incorrectly in the published article. Please see Figs 3, 4 and 5, and their correct captions here.