The publisher regrets introducing the following errors into the paper “Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996-2005” after the authors approved the page proofs:
On page 275, in reference to study designs, the published paper stated that “From weakest to strongest, study designs in this group are case report, case series and cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies.” This suggests that case series and cross sectional study designs occupy the same level in the hierarchy, which is incorrect. The sentence should have read “From weakest to strongest, study designs in this group are case report, case series, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies.”
On page 278, the degrees of freedom in the one-way ANOVA test was written as “degrees of freedom (df) = 2722”. This is incorrect. The correct figure should be “degrees of freedom (df) = 2, 722”.
On page 279, Table 4 was printed with incorrect figures, the correct table should have appeared as below.
Table 4. Number of authors per paper by region.
| Region |
||||||||||
| N |
Japan |
USA |
Other |
F | df | P* | ||||
| n | mean (SD) | n | mean (SD) | n | mean (SD) | |||||
| All papers | 725 | 192 | 5.78 (1.98) | 165 | 3.78 (1.72) | 368 | 3.76 (1.51) | 99.50 | 2, 722 | <0.01 |
| Clinical research | 384 | 117 | 5.97 (1.84) | 61 | 3.67 (1.55) | 206 | 3.72 (1.46) | 81.23 | 2, 381 | <0.01 |
| Diagnostic efficacy | 246 | 57 | 5.75 (1.92) | 72 | 3.90 (1.73) | 117 | 3.68 (1.31) | 34.60 | 2, 243 | <0.01 |
df, degrees of freedom; SD, standard deviation. * All post-hoc pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (Tukey honestly significant difference, P < 0.01): Japan > USA, other
Also on page 279, in reference to how the two hierarchies relate to one another, the published paper combined two sentences into one, “Furthermore, the lack of higher levels of efficacy studies could be predicted from the lack of higher levels of study designs, and conversely higher levels of efficacy (levels 3-6) can also be addressed with decision analytic models.” This is incorrect. The sentences should have read “Furthermore, the lack of higher levels of efficacy studies could be predicted from the lack of higher levels of study designs, and conversely. Higher levels of efficacy (levels 3-6) can also be addressed with decision analytic models.”