Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: Diabetes Ther (2023) 14:2089–2108 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01478-2
In the section “NAFLD Fibrosis Score” the sentence starting from “NFS can be calculated using the following formula…” has been revised as “NFS can be calculated using the following formula: NAFLD fibrosis score = −1.675 + 0.037 × age (year) + 0.094 × BMI (kg/m2 ) + 1.13 × IFG/diabetes (yes = 1, no = 0) + 0.99 × AST/ALT ratio - 0.013 × platelet count (×109 /L) − 0.66 × albumin (g/dL)…”
There were a few errors in the “Interpretation” section. The corrected section is given below:
Interpretation
-
A score < −1.455 = lower risk of advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) in subjects > 65 years of age;
-
A score > 0.676 = high risk for advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) for all ages.
A close relationship between FIB-4 and NFS was described [24, 25].
Indeed, values of FIB-4 > 2.67 or NFS 0.676 identify people with a high probability of advanced liver fibrosis or advanced fibrosis (F3/F4), while people with FIB 0/1 or NFS < −1.455 are free of fibrosis, and those having FIB-4 Score F2 or NFS − 1.455 to 0.676 are undetermined [20, 21, respectively].
The cost for their calculation is negligible, and the result is immediate. Both scores were developed and validated for the identification of patients with NAFLD with a high probability of having bridging fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4) [24, 25, 30, 31].
In the “Results” section, the sentence starting from “The prevalence of extreme scores stayed almost unchanged only in the CG…” had an error with the NFS value of the low probability scores. This has been revised to “…low probability scores (NFS < −1.455)…”
In the “Discussion” section, the sentence starting from “PGR improved fibrosis extent significantly not only in those with high scores…” was revised to “PGR improved fibrosis extent significantly not only in those with high scores (FIB-4 F3–F4 and NFS > 0.626) but also in less severe cases (F0–F2 and < -1.455, respectively).”
In the original article, the word “Policaptil Gel Retard” has been revised as “Neo-Policaptil Gel Retard”.
In the section “Inclusion Criteria”, the sentence begining from “No previous utilization” has been revised as “No previous utilization of lipid-lowering drugs against metabolic disorders”.
In the “Fatty Liver Index” section, the sentence starting from “In NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis)...” has been revised as “In NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis):
-
Fibrosis F0-F1 (FIB-4 < 1.30)
-
Moderate fibrosis F2 (1.30 to 2.67)
-
Cirrhosis F3-F4 (FIB-4 > 2.67)”.
There were a few errors in Table 1. The correct Table 1 is given below:
Table 1 Starting general features of the two treatment groups
Control group (n. 123) | Treatment group (n. 122) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | (Years) | 72.2 ± 6.4 | 71.4 ± 5.4 | ns |
Sex | (M/F) | 68/55 | 71/51 | ns |
Diabetes duration | (years) | 7.2 ± 3.3 | 7.4 ± 4.1 | ns |
BMI | (kg/m2) | 35.2 ± 4.4 | 36.1 ± 5.0 | ns |
HbA1c | (%) | 8.0 ± 1.5 | 8.1 ± 1.3 | ns |
FPG | (mg/dl) | 130.7 ± 15.4 | 131.0 ± 14.9 | ns |
PPG | (mg(dl) | 188.1 ± 20.4 | 190.7 ± 14.3 | ns |
Insulin | (μIU/ml) | 30.3 ± 4.5 | 30.9 ± 4.9 | ns |
C-peptide | (ng/ml) | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | ns |
HOMA-IR | – | 4.9 ± 0.4 | 4.9 ± 0.7 | ns |
AST | (IU/l) | 68.5 ± 6.9 | 70.3 ± 5.8 | ns |
ALT | (IU/l) | 69.6 ± 8.3 | 71.2 ± 8.4 | ns |
γ-GT | (IU/l) | 69.4 ± 4.9 | 66.5 ± 7.8 | ns |
ALP | (IU/l) | 189.5 ± 14.4 | 190.8 ± 14.6 | ns |
Total Bilirubin | (mg/dl) | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | ns |
Total cholesterol | (mg/dl) | 199.7 ± 18.8 | 195.8 ± 19.7 | ns |
HDL cholesterol | (mg/dl) | 43.1 ± 4.5 | 44.7 ± 3.8 | ns |
Triglyceride | (mg/dl) | 199.7 ± 22.8 | 197.7 ± 26.5 | ns |
LDL cholesterol | (mg/dl) | 137.5 ± 8.7 | 143.5 ± 9.7 | ns |
Red blood cells | (× 106/μl) | 4.6 ± 0.9 | 4.7 ± 0.8 | ns |
White blood cells | (× 103/μl) | 8.6 ± 1.5 | 8.8 ± 1.7 | ns |
Platelet count | (n/μl) | 162,000 ± 15,000 | 168,000 ± 20,000 | ns |
Albumin | (g/dl) | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 3.9 ± 0.5 | ns |
Uric Acid | (mg/dl) | 7.02 ± 1.2 | 7.4 ± 0.9 | ns |
eGFR | (ml/min/1.73m2) | 82.9 ± 7.2 | 91.1 ± 8.3 | ns |
Waist circumference | 121.5 ± 4.7 | 120.8 ± 6.2 | ns | |
Trunk fat | (%) | 48.5 ± 4.4 | 47.8 ± 5.7 | ns |
Visceral fat | (%) | 24.6 ± 5.4 | 25.2 ± 6.1 | ns |
FLI | ||||
< 30 (no steatosis) | n. (%) | 2 (1.62) | 2 (1.63) | ns |
> 60 (steatosis) | n. (%) | 116 (94.31) | 116 (95.08) | |
31–59 (inconclusive) | n. (%) | 5 (4.07) | 4 (3.29) | ns ns |
FIB-4 | ||||
F0–F1 < 1.30 | n. (%) | 12 (9.75) | 11 (9.01) | ns |
F3–F4 > 2.67 | n. (%) | 104 (84.56) | 102 (83.62) | |
F2 | n. (%) | 7 (5.69) | 9 (7.37) | ns ns |
NFS | ||||
< −1.455 | n. (%) | 8 (6.50) | 8 (6.56) | ns |
> 0.676 | n. (%) | 111 (90.25) | 110 (90.17) | ns |
Inconclusive | n. (%) | 4 (3.25) | 4 (3.27) | ns |
Chronic diabetes complications/comorbidities (one or more) | ||||
Cardio-vascular disease | n. (%) | 77 (62.82) | 75 (61.56) | ns |
Hypertension | n. (%) | 95 (77.54) | 89 (73.77) | ns |
Kidney disease | n. (%) | 22 (18.31) | 20 (16.71) | ns |
Retinopathy | n. (%) | 34 (27.93) | 37 (30.44) | ns |
Neuropathy | n. (%) | 36 (29.54) | 30 (25.38) | ns |
Foot ulcer/amputation | n. (%) | 4 (3.13) | 3 (2.32) | ns |
Previous stroke | n. (%) | 8 (6.37) | 9 (7.28) | ns |
Hypercholesterolemia | n. (%) | 63 (51.07) | 67 (55.23) | ns |
There was an error in Table 2. The correct Table 2 is given below:
Table 2 Treatment side effects in the two groups
Nausea | Diarrhea | Vomiting | Abdominal pain | Decreased appetite | Indigestion and fatigue | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control group (%) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Treatment group (%) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 |
p | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | < 0.001 | n.s |
In this article there is error in Fig. 3 as below.
The correct Fig. 3 is shown below.
There is an error in Fig. 4 and Fig. 4 legend as below.
The correct Fig. 4 and Fig.4 legend shown as below.
Comparison of FIB-4 in subjects without or with light fibrosis (FIB-4 < 1.30; F0-F1), severe fibrosis (FIB-4 > 2.67; F3-F4), and moderate diagnosis (FIB-4 between 1.31 and 2.66; F2) between baseline and end of follow-up. **p < 0.001 vs. baseline and CG. FIB-4 Fibrosis (FIB)-4 Score, CG control group
There is an error in Fig. 5 and Fig. 5 legend as below.
The correct Fig. 5 and Fig. 5 legend is shown below.
Comparison of percentages of subjects with (NFS > 0.676) and without (NFS < −1.455) advanced liver fibrosis, or inconclusive results (NFS −1.455 to 0.676), between baseline and the end of follow-up; *p < 0.001 vs. baseline; #p < 0.001 vs. the other group. NFS NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) Fibrosis Score
There is an error in Fig. 6 as below.
The correct Fig. 6 is shown as below.
The original article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Guarino, G., Strollo, F., Della Corte, T. et al. Correction to: Effect of Neo-Policaptil Gel Retard on Liver Fat Content and Fibrosis in Adults with Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes: A Non-invasive Approach to MAFLD. Diabetes Ther 15, 1485–1490 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-024-01553-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-024-01553-2