Correction to: Reprod Biol Endocrinol 17, 74 (2019)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0516-5

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the order of the figures.

The Fig. 1 published is supposed to be Fig. 5. The Fig. 2 published is supposed to be Fig. 1. The Fig. 3 published is supposed to be Fig. 2. The Fig. 4 published is supposed to be Fig. 3. The Fig. 5 published is supposed to be Fig. 4. The correct order of the figures are as follows:

Fig. 1
figure 1

Endometrial echogenicity in infertile women after hCG trigger during COH cycles. (A) Endometrial echogenicity with non-pregnant women. (B) Endometrial echogenicity with pregnant women. The black arrow points to the endometrium-myometrium interfaces. a, HCG day; b, OPU + 1; c, OPU + 2; d, OPU + 3

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Clinical pregnancy rates in different endometrial echogenicity groups assessed on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Implantation rates in different endometrial echogenicity groups assessed on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

ROC curve of endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 1,2,3 for successful clinical pregnancy. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.738(95%CI:0.656–0.819), 0.765(95%CI: 0.688–0.842), 0.714(95%CI:0.624–0.804) respectively on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3. Endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 2 had the most predictive value, and the cutoff value was 76.5%. The sensitivity was 61.3% and the specificity was 82.0%

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

ROC curve of the combination of endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 2 and thickness on OPU + 3. The areas under the ROC curve was 0.751 (95%CI:0.665–0.836)

Full size image

The publishers apologise for this error.