Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: CJEM (2019) 21(6):727–738 https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.381
In the original article, the authors erroneously reported data from Boulanger et al. from their 2001 manuscript (reference 20 in original manuscript). Due to a transcription error they quoted a sensitivity of 0.33 (95% CI 0.01–0.91) and a specificity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.89–1.00), which gave a + LR of 24.00 and a − LR of 0.67. The correct value for sensitivity is 1.00 (95% CI 0.025–1.00) and the specificity is 0.94 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). This then gives a corresponding + LR of 10.2 (95% CI 2.43–42.9) and a − LR of 0.27 (95% CI 0.02–2.98). The pooled sensitivity for all included studies examining PCE is 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95) and the pooled specificity is 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.95). Pooled + LR is 30.84 (95% CI 0.96–993.5) and the pooled − LR is 0.09 (95% CI 0.03–0.36). Including these corrected values does not change the overall interpretation of the data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Netherton, S., Milenkovic, V., Taylor, M. et al. Correction to: Diagnostic accuracy of eFAST in the trauma patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Emerg Med 24, 104 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-021-00226-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-021-00226-4