We fell victim to the perils of “copying and pasting” during the editing of this Analysis article by von Elm and colleagues (BMJ 2007;335:806-8, 20 Oct, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD). In the table, the “recommendation” text intended for item 16 was overwritten by the text from item 13. The correct recommendation for item 16 (main results) is: (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder adjusted estimates and their precision (eg 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included; (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorised; (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period. The correct version of the table is available at www.strobe-statement.org/Checklist.html.







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