Erratum to: Cancer Causes Control (2014) 25:283–291 DOI 10.1007/s10552-013-0330-x

After publication, it was noted by the authors that the dataset used for the analyses of occupational exposures in this study accidentally used incomplete occupational histories for 94 control fathers and 104 control mothers recruited in 2006, and these control parents were all treated as unexposed to occupational painting.

Results in Tables 1–5 were unaffected by this error as they concerned household rather than occupational paint exposure. The conclusions regarding the association with household exposure to paint and floor treatments are consequently unaffected.

However, for occupational exposure, 15 control fathers and 1 control mother were mistakenly classified as being unexposed when they should have been classified as exposed (any time before the child’s birth). The analyses presented in Table 6 in the published article were rerun using the complete dataset to ensure correct exposure assignment (5 case fathers and 4 control fathers were additionally excluded from the revised occupational analysis due to genuinely missing data). The updated Table 6 is presented in this erratum.

Table 6 Fathers’ occupational exposure to the application of paint and risk of CBT
Full size table

In the original publication, the authors commented in the results section that the ORs for paternal occupational exposure to paints were slightly elevated but lacked precision, and in the conclusion remarked that there was "little evidence that exposure to paints at home, or parental exposure at work, was associated with risk of CBT." The revised ORs for paternal occupational exposure to paints are only slightly different from those previously published so these statements are still correct. There were still too few occupationally exposed mothers to analyse (2 cases/6 controls).

The sentence in the abstract concerning fathers’ occupational exposure should now read:

“The OR for the association between CBT and paternal occupational exposure to paint any time before the pregnancy was 1.23 (95 % CI 0.85, 1.78), which is consistent with the results of other studies.”

The authors offer their sincere apologies for any confusion that they may have caused.