Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2016 Jul 8;11(7):e0159222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159222

Correction: How Reliable Are Current Data for Assessing the Actual Prevalence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

Anna Maria Romanelli, Mauro Raciti, Maria Angela Protti, Renato Prediletto, Edo Fornai, Annunziata Faustini
PMCID: PMC4938557  PMID: 27391271

There is an error in the “length of longitudinal periods” section of Table 1 in the third column. The correct value is “5yrs.” Please see the corrected Table 1 here.

Table 1. Algorithm for enrollment of COPD cases and contributing to COPD prevalence, according to prevalence periods and length of longitudinal periods.

prevalence periods
2002–2006 2004–2006 2004–2006
length of longitudinal periods
3yrs 3yrs 5yrs
Definition of cases 2000–2006 2002–2006 2000–2006
Subjects with one of the HDR ICD9 codes (490, 491, 492, 494, 496) as principal or secondary diagnosis and still alive at the beginning of the prevalence period 2182 1654 1897
+
Subjects with COPD diagnosis in hospital chart, still alive at the beginning of the period, with no HDR report in the longitudinal period 17 12 13
+
Subjects with COPD diagnosis in outpatient clinic chart, still alive and with no HDR report or hospital chart in the longitudinal period 33 35 33
+
Subjects with spirometry and FEV1/FVC< = 0.70, with no HDR report or clinical charts in the longitudinal period 250 246 247
+
Subjects deceased with COPD as underlined cause in the prevalence period, with no HDR report or clinical charts or spirometry in the longitudinal period 62 38 33
=
COPD prevalent cases enrolled in each period 2544 1985 2223

Reference


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES