Effectiveness of treatments for infantile colic: systematic review

An authors’ error occurred in this paper by P L B J Lucassen et al (23 May, pp 1563-9). In the table the first two effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals should have read 0.05 (−0.17 to 0.27) for Evans et al¹⁴ and 0.18 (−0.03 to 0.40) for Lothe et al¹⁵ [not 0.05 (−0.01 to 0.11) and 0.18 (0.08 to 0.28), respectively].