Correction to: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (2020) 277:207–215 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05698-w

As authors of the article Value of pre- and intraoperative diagnostic methods in suspected glottic neoplasia [1] we would like to draw attention to two unfortunate errors that occurred in the paper.

In a nationwide prospective cohort study of 261 patients suspected for glottic neoplasia, we evaluated the individual and combined ability of videostroboscopy (VS), high-speed digital imaging (HSDI), enhanced endoscopy (EE) and saline infusion (SI) to predict neoplasia.

In Table 4 Logistic regression modelling of relevant explanatory variables in predicting neoplasia, the Odds Ratio (OR) for Male gender is in fact the OR for Female gender and thus reflects the reduced OR in females. The conclusion of the paper is correct in that significant association (p < 0.05) only appears between age, male gender, and perpendicular vasculature in intraoperative EE, and the endpoint neoplasia. However, the published Table 4 would mislead the reader to the interpretation that the odds for neoplasia were reduced in males. We include the corrected Table 4, so that readers will be in no doubt about the impact of gender in glottic neoplasia.

Table 4 Logistic regression modelling of relevant explanatory variables in predicting neoplasia
Full size table

A minor error that escaped our attention in the manuscript is the number of SI. We investigated 237 SI, as correctly shown in Table 2, and not 234 as described in the result section.

We deeply regret and apologize for these errors.

Another issue that is not erroneous, but may need clarification is on the number of VS. We investigated 188 VS, as correctly stated in the result section, but 19 datasets did not provide enough details on the mucosal wave, and thus 169 VS were further analyzed, as correctly shown in Table 2.