Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: (Published 11 January 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:d8277

In the final stages of production, the authors of this paper, Bianca Hemmingsen and colleagues, made some late changes to data in the 14 figures, resulting in some errors in the published article (BMJ 2011;343:d6898, doi:10.1136/bmj.d6898). Additionally, after publication they also noticed some further errors. In the abstract and results section, the P value for retinopathy should be 0.008 [rather than 0.009] and the number of participants should be 10 070 [not 10 793]. The trial sequential analysis adjusted 95% confidence interval for retinopathy should be 0.55 to 1.15 [not 0.54 to 1.17]. Figure 10 and figure 11 have been corrected; and in the legend to fig 11, the heterogeneity adjusted required information size is 40 021 [not 43 960] participants calculated on the basis of proportion of retinopathy of 15.5% [not 14.3%] in the conventional glucose control group, and the number of participants is as above. In table 2, the conventional glycaemic control column for Jaber et al 1996 and REMBO 2008 should read “Standard treatment” [rather than “Not specified”]. Table 4 contained incorrect information for selective outcome reporting bias and had been corrected. Finally, in appendix 3 of the webextra (original re-posted here), the retinopathy outcome for UGDP 1975 should be “Fundus abnormalities excluding exudates.”

Table 4 (Corrected)

 Risk of bias assessments of included trials

View this table:


Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:d8277

View Abstract