Correction to: Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2021) 259:3637–3647

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05293-y

The original version of this article unfortunately contained errors. The corrections are given in the following list:

  1. 1.

    In Fig. 5A, the patient group with “Any fluid” at the non-foveal location incorrectly also included a few patients whose fluid presence is unknown. The corresponding non-foveal data have been re-evaluated and Fig. 5A amended. Specifically, data for the number of patients, mean BCVA, and 95% confidence intervals have been updated for the bars representing non-foveal fluid at weeks 16, 52, and 96. The correct data are now presented in Fig. 5A.

  2. 2.

    In Fig. 5, it was also not specified that the footnotes “Missing for each fluid compartment (n = 2)” and “Unknown for IRF (n = 3)” were at baseline (not at other timepoints). The Fig. 5 footnote has now been corrected to clarify that these cases were at baseline.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mean absolute BCVA (ETDRS letters) and 95% confidence intervals at mandatory study visits at weeks 0, 16, 52, and 96 in A patients without or with any foveal or non-foveal fluid,a B patients without or with any foveal or non-foveal IRF, C patients without or with any foveal or non-foveal SRF, and D patients without or with any foveal or non-foveal PED. Full analysis set (N = 246).b,c The number underneath each bar represents the number of patients in each group at each study visit. aIncludes IRF and SRF only; bMissing for each fluid compartment  (n = 2); cUnknown for IRF (n = 3). BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; ETDRS, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; IRF, intraretinal fluid; PED, pigment epithelial detachment; SRF, subretinal fluid

The correct figure and legend are shown below. Revisions are shown in green for ease of reference.

This is being corrected in this publication.