References should be corrected
in their systematic review Haider and colleagues report that the included randomised trials were 48 and, according to the main text, the respective references go from 31 to 78. When one go through the studies in the meta-analysis (Figure 2, for example) there appears two references [Falahi 2011; Ouladsahebmadarek 2011] that are not present in list of references in the main text. It is important that the authors indicate which of the 48 references in the main paper are wrongly placed and should be replaced by Falahi 2011 and Ouladsahebmadarek 2011.
Iosief Abraha MD
Competing interests: No competing interests