Erratum to: Drug Saf (2013) 36:1151–1157 DOI 10.1007/s40264-013-0092-0
Page 1153, column 2, section 3.3, paragraph 1, lines 1–5: The following two sentences, which previously read:
“Thirty (75 %) tools were based on potential rather than actual harm. It is of interest that the NCC MERP index [68] was developed to assess actual harm but was subsequently used or adapted to assess potential harm in six studies [48, 50, 51, 54–56].”
should read:
“Twenty nine (72.5 %) were based on potential rather than actual harm. It is of interest that the NCC MERP index [68] was developed to assess actual harm but was subsequently used or adapted to assess potential harm in five studies [50–51, 54–56].”
Page 1155, column 1, section 3.6, paragraph 1, lines 7–11: The following sentence, which previously read:
“Forrey et al. [48] found that the original NCC MERP index [68] had 74 % alignment and that their adapted version had 81.0–83.9 % alignment when potential harm assessment was compared with actual harm.”
should read:
“Forrey et al. [48] found that the original NCC MERP index [68] had 74 % alignment and that their adapted version had 81.0–83.9 % alignment when the severity scores of an expert panel (used as a gold standard) were compared with those of individual raters.”
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0092-0.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.