Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to : Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2022) 260:3489–3498
This article contained some errors:
#1. In Table 1, the direction of the inequality sign in the logMAR Best-corrected visual acuity was reversed.
#2. Regarding Supplementary Information 4, the patients who received combination therapies were corrected in accordance with the communication with the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. Although there were additions in some categories, these additional patients also had received other combination therapies, thus there was no change in the total number of patients receiving the combination therapies.
#3. Regarding “Events that occurred when used in combination with PRP” in Table 3, the proportion of the number of patients who developed these events was originally calculated using the safety analysis set (n = 646) as a denominator, but this time, the number of the patients who received PRP (n = 81) as combination therapy was used as a denominator. In addition, we recounted the number of patients who developed these adverse events by distinguishing between serious and non-serious.
#4. In the footnote of Fig. 2, we had mistakenly put the text that should have been included in the footnote of Supplementary information 8.
The correct tables and legends are shown below. Revisions are shown in green.
Supplementary Information 4 Combination therapiesa
Patients, n (%)b | |
|---|---|
Safety analysis set | 646 (100) |
Absence of combination therapies | 434 (67.2) |
Presence of combination therapiesa | 201 (31.1) |
Panretinal photocoagulation |
|
Corticosteroids |
|
Surgery | 52 (8.0) |
Direct coagulation | 45 (7.0) |
Grid coagulation | 3 (0.5) |
Other | 10 (1.5) |
Table 3
Figure 2
a LogMAR BCVAs and numbers of patients during the 24-month study period. b CRTs (μm) and numbers of patients during the 24-month study period. The mean and standard deviation are indicated with markers and whiskers, respectively. BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, BL baseline, CRT central retinal thickness, logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution
Supplementary Information 8 Subgroup analysis based on the presence/absence of previous treatment. (a) LogMAR BCVAs and numbers of patients during the 24-month study period.
(b) CRTs (μm) and numbers of patients during the 24-month study period.
The mean and standard deviation are indicated with markers and whiskers, respectively.
BCVA best-corrected visual acuity; BL baseline; CRT central retinal thickness; logMAR logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sugimoto, M., Handa, C., Hirano, K. et al. Correction to: Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema in real‑world clinical practice in Japan: 24‑month outcomes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 261, 283–287 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05917-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05917-x