Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests

In this article by Jonathan J Deeks in the series “Systematic reviews in health care” (21 July, pp 157-62), several errors appeared in figure 2. The numerators for specificity (right hand panel) should have been labelled as false positives [not true negatives]. The sensitivity point estimates for Nasri(b)and Taviani should be 1.0, and the specificity point estimate for Goldstein should be 0.41 [not 0.6]. We apologise for introducing the errors in the positioning of these points.