Correction to: BMC Pulmonary Medicine (2018) 19:14
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-018-0774-6
Following publication of the original article [1], the author flagged that the ‘True negative’ values given in Table 1, for ‘Excluding patients with inaccessible LNs’, were wrong for ‘Adenocarcinoma’, ‘Squamous cell carcinoma’ and ‘Others’.
The (incorrect) values previously given were 273 (46.0) for ‘Adenocarcinoma’, 44 (7.4) for ‘Squamous cell carcinoma’, and a blank value for ‘Others’.
Please be advised that the correct values are:
277 (46.6) for ‘Adenocarcinoma’.
273 (46.0) for ‘Squamous cell carcinoma’.
44 (7.4) for ‘Other’.
The original article has now been corrected to reflect this.
The publisher apologizes for this error.
Reference
Kim et al. (2018) Are there differences among operators in false-negative rates of endosonography with needle aspiration for mediastinal nodal staging of non-small cell lung cancer? (2018) 19:14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-018-0774-6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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 Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, S., Shin, B., Lee, H. et al. Correction to: Are there differences among operators in false-negative rates of endosonography with needle aspiration for mediastinal nodal staging of non-small cell lung cancer?. BMC Pulm Med 19, 69 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0805-y
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0805-y