Dr Kurutz is, of course, correct in assuming that the Y axis in
figure 1 has been mislabelled. Having just checked the original file, I
can confirm that the graph sent to the BMJ began at 60 and went to 80, not
0 to 80 as it appeared in the final version. Unfortunately we only saw the
text, not the graphs at the proof stage. In posting this, perhaps the BMJ
could make the necessary erratum.
Rapid Response:
Graph was mislabelled
Dr Kurutz is, of course, correct in assuming that the Y axis in
figure 1 has been mislabelled. Having just checked the original file, I
can confirm that the graph sent to the BMJ began at 60 and went to 80, not
0 to 80 as it appeared in the final version. Unfortunately we only saw the
text, not the graphs at the proof stage. In posting this, perhaps the BMJ
could make the necessary erratum.
Martin McKee
Competing interests: No competing interests