We regret that in our paper in the January issue of PLoS Medicine [1], we failed to cite an important recent study [2] that validates a simple 5-point quality rating score virtually identical to the one we used, and which we find more efficient than scores with multiple subscales. We apologize for the omission of this helpful research.
Footnotes
Michael Callaham (mlc@medicine.ucsf.edu)
University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
Funding: The author received no specific funding for this article.
Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
References
- Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e40. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:979–985. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000231675.74957.48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]