The authors wish to apologize to readers for an incorrect element in Table 1 and Figure 1 in the original article [1]. The correct files have been included in this erratum. We also wish to thank Sara Heesterbeek for alerting us to our error.
Table 1.
Interventions mentioned in research priorities identified by James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships, and among registered trials, 2003-2012
| Type of intervention | JLA patient-clinician Priority Setting Partnerships | Registered non-commercial trials | Registered commercial trials |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentages (numbers) of interventions out of a total of 126 interventions mentioned | Percentage (numbers) of interventions out of a total of 1069 interventions mentioned | Percentage (numbers) of interventions out of a total of 798 interventions mentioned | |
| Drugs, vaccines and biologicals | 18 (23) | 37 (397) | 86 (689) |
| Radiotherapy, surgery and perioperative, devices, and diagnostic | 23 (29) | 31 (332) | 11 (89) |
| Education and training, service delivery, psychological therapy, physical therapies, exercise, complementary therapies, social care, mixed or complex, diet, other | 59 (74) | 32 (340) | 3 (20) |
Fig. 1.
Interventions mentioned in commercial trials, non-commercial trials and research priorities identified by James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships, 2003-2012
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x.
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x.
Reference
- 1.Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2015;1:2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]