Correction
After publication of their article [1], the authors noticed two errors in their viewpoint.
On page 4 under the subheading "Recent randomized controlled trials", the text currently reads "However, both ICU and hospital stays were shorter in the tight-calorie group, clearly introducing the statistical problem of informative censoring/competing risk that we discussed earlier." The ICU and hospital stays are in fact longer in the tight-calorie group, and this statement should therefore read "However, both ICU and hospital stays were longer in the tight-calorie group, clearly introducing the statistical problem of informative censoring/competing risk that we discussed earlier."
On page 5 also under the subheading "Recent randomized controlled trials", the text currently reads "The EN amount did not differ between groups and reached ±50% of target at day 7." In fact, the EN amount reached ±20% of target at day 7, and this statement should therefore read "The EN amount did not differ between groups and reached ±20% of target at day 7."
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
See related viewpoint by Schetz et al., http://ccforum.com/content/17/1/302
Contributor Information
Miet Schetz, Email: michael.casaer@uzleuven.be.
Michael Paul Casaer, Email: greet.vandenberghe@med.kuleuven.be.
Greet Van den Berghe, Email: miet.schetz@scarlet.be.
References
- Schetz M, Casaer MP, Van den Berghe. Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness? Critical Care. 2013;17:302. doi: 10.1186/cc11828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]