Erratum
After publication of the original article [1], it came to the author’s attention that there were two errors in the Conclusions section. ‘Quantitative’ was mistakenly written as ‘qualitative’ in the following part of the section:
“Quantitative estimates of f-Hb also provide more information than qualitative f-Hb POC tests. Simple and rapid diagnostic pathways are also advantageous. Thus, a possible strategy would be to collect a sample for quantitative measure of f-Hb from all patients presenting with lower abdominal symptoms in primary care.”
Reference
Fraser CG. Diagnostic work-up of patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: which faecal test and triage strategy should be used? BMC Med. 2016;14:139. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0694-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0694-3.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Fraser, C.G. Erratum to: Diagnostic work-up of patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: which faecal test and triage strategy should be used?. BMC Med 14, 158 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0713-4
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0713-4