Correction to: BMC Pulmonary Med
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-1053-x
Following publication of the original article [1], the authors flagged that the article had gone to publishing with errors in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
The content of Table 2 had erroneously been replaced by a duplication of the content of Table 3, while the content of Table 1 had been erroneously replaced by the (correct) content of Table 2.
Furthermore, in the (non-PDF) version of Table 3 the top two rows were erroneously formatted in bold.
These errors have now been corrected in the original article.
Please also find the corrected tables in this article for reference.
The publisher apologizes for this technical error.
Reference
Brownell, et al. Does this lung nodule need urgent review? A discrete choice experiment of Australian general practitioners. 2020;20:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-1053-x.
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
Brownell, P., Piccolo, F., Brims, F. et al. Correction to: Does this lung nodule need urgent review? A discrete choice experiment of Australian general practitioners. BMC Pulm Med 20, 53 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-1085-2
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-1085-2