Correction to Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
Correction to Nothing like experience
In this article by Jonathan J Deeks in the series “Systematic reviews in health care” (21 July, pp 157-62), several errors appeared in figure 2. The numerators for specificity (right hand panel) should have been labelled as false positives [not true negatives]. The sensitivity point estimates for Nasri(b)and Taviani should be 1.0, and the specificity point estimate for Goldstein should be 0.41 [not 0.6]. We apologise for introducing the errors in the positioning of these points.
PDF
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27