Correction to: Trials (2019) 20: 566
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3671-2
Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that one of an error in the Conclusions section of the Abstract.
The range of correlations should read “0.4 to 0.6” instead of “0.4 to -0.6” in the phrase “There is a general consistency in the correlations between the repeated PROMs, with the majority 31 being in the range of 0.4 to 0.6.”
The original article has been corrected.
Reference
Walters SJ, et al. Sample size estimation for randomised controlled trials with repeated assessment of patient-reported outcomes: what correlation between baseline and follow-up outcomes should we assume? Trials. 2019;20:566. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3671-2.
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
Walters, S.J., Jacques, R.M., dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby, I.B. et al. Correction to: Sample size estimation for randomised controlled trials with repeated assessment of patient-reported outcomes: what correlation between baseline and follow-up outcomes should we assume?. Trials 20, 611 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3732-6
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3732-6