In the second and third sentences of the Results subsection of the Abstract, the sentence should read: AMACR by IHC was significantly associated with increased diagnosis of PCa (OR=51.12; 95% CI, 19.08–136.98; P<0.00001). Subgroup-analysis showed that findings didn’t substantially change when only Caucasians or Asians (OR=34.92; 95% CI, 12.81–95.18; P<0.00001) were considered.
In the first sentence of the Meta-analysis Results subsection of the Evidence Synthesis, the sentence should read: he pooled result revealed that positive AMACR by IHC was significantly associated with increased diagnosis of PCa (OR=51.12; 95% CI, 19.08–136.98; P<0.00001) and Subgroup-analysis showed that findings didn’t substantially change when only Caucasians (OR=34.92; 95% CI, 12.81–95.18; P<0.00001).
In the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Discussion, the sentence should read: AMACR expression by IHC was significantly associated with increased diagnosis of PCa (OR=51.12; 95% CI, 19.08–136.98; P<0.00001). The overall analysis provided strong replication of the initial findings, confirming the AMACR for PCa.
Footnotes
Competing Interests: No competing interests declared.