Correction to: Is percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) effective for fecal incontinence (FI) in adults compared with sham electrical stimulation? A meta‑analysis

Correction to: Techniques in Coloproctology (2024) 28:37 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-02910-w

In this article, fecal incontinence values (MD, CI and P) are incorrect in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. The values are corrected, and the updated Figs. 3, 4 and 5 are given here.

Fig. 3

Forest plot showing the mean changes in episodes of fecal incontinence (FI) per week compared with sham groups

Fig. 4

Forest plot showing the mean changes in St Mark’s scores compared with sham groups

Fig. 5

Forest plot showing the mean changes in four domains of the Fecal Incontinence (FI) QoL compared with sham groups. A Lifestyle, B coping, C depression, D embarrassment

In this article, references 42 and 43 were incorrectly added under the heading “Statistical analysis” and they should have been listed under the ‘Reference’ heading in the backmatter.

[42] Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC medical research methodology 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.

[43] Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J (1992) Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. Journal of clinical epidemiology 45 (7):769–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q.

The original article has been corrected.