Erratum: Impact of Early Hemodynamic Screening on Extremely Preterm Outcomes in a High-Performance Center

In the article by Giesinger and colleagues (1), published in the August 1, 2023 issue of the Journal, there are errors in the reporting of the study timeline. In Figure 3 the first two years (2008-2009) of the historical control subject recruitment epoch were incorrectly included in the first quartile on the figure, rather than being reported as independent quartiles; the figure has been modified accordingly. In addition, the dotted line was shifted to more accurately reflect the timing of the initiation of the hemodynamic screening program, and errors in the inclusion of patients in the appropriate quartiles were corrected (instead of using the listed quartile of birth from the dataset, the authors automatically assigned quartiles based on month and year of birthdate). Reflecting these changes, mentions of the year that the control subject recruitment epoch began were changed from “2010” to the correct “2008” in the Methods and the Discussion text, as well as in the abstract. The authors state that there is no difference in the interpretation of the data, which remains statistically significant but with a slightly different odds ratio.

In addition, there are corrections to the tables. In Table 1, the row heading “Change in CO₂ in the first 24h (mm Hg)” in the section “Neonatal IVH risk factors 0–24h” should be changed to “Highest CO₂ in the first 24h (mm Hg).” In addition, the hemodynamic screening data for vaginal and for primary cesarean section were switched. Finally, in both Tables 1 and 2 there were rounding errors in the calculations that have been corrected.

For the convenience of our readers, the Journal is replacing the online version of the article with a corrected version.