Correction to Mathieu D, Marroni A, Kot J: Tenth European Consensus Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine: recommendations for accepted and non-accepted clinical indications and practice of hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Diving Hyperb Med. 2017 Mar;47(1):24-32.

Consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, we the above authors are initiating a partial retraction and correction of our paper: Mathieu D, Marroni A, Kot J: Tenth European Consensus Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine: recommendations for accepted and non-accepted clinical indications and practice of hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Diving Hyperb Med. 2017 Mar;47(1):24-32.

We wish to make the following statement: "Regardless of the strict process of editing and proof-reading of tables included in the above-mentioned publication, we received some comments from readers which showed us that imperfect layout of Table 1 and incorrect layout of Table 2 changed significantly the conclusions which could be drawn from them.

Table 1. Consensus-based and GRADE scaling for recommendations .

Strength of recommendation (consensus-based)	Level of evidence (based on GRADE system)
Level 1 = Strong recommendation = "We recommend…"	Grade A = High level of evidence
The course of action is considered appropriate by the	The true effect lies close to our estimate of the effect.
large majority of experts with no major dissension. The
panel is confident that the desirable effects of adherence
to the recommendation outweigh the undesirable effects.
Level 2 = Weak recommendation = "We suggest…"	Grade B = Moderate level of evidence
The course of action is considered appropriate by the	The true effect is likely to be close to our estimate of
majority of experts but some degree of dissension exists	the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially
amongst the panel. The desirable effects of adherence to the	different.
recommendation probably outweigh the undesirable effects.
Level 3 = Neutral recommendation = "It would be	Grade C = Low level of evidence
reasonable…"	The true effect may be substantially different from our
The course of action could be considered appropriate in	estimate of the effect
the right context.
No recommendation	Grade D = Very low level of evidence
No agreement was reached by the group of experts.	Our estimate of the effect is just a guess, and it is very
	likely that the true effect is substantially different from our
	estimate of the effect.

Table 2. Recommendations on the indications accepted for HBOT .

Condition	Level of evidence		Agreement level
	B	C
Type 1
CO poisoning	X		Strong agreement
Open fractures with crush injury	X		Strong agreement
Prevention of osteoradionecrosis after	X		Strong agreement
dental extraction
Osteoradionecrosis (mandible)	X		Strong agreement
Soft tissue radionecrosis (cystitis, proctitis)	X		Strong agreement
Decompression illness		X	Strong agreement
Gas embolism		X	Strong agreement
Anaerobic or mixed bacterial infections		X	Strong agreement
Sudden deafness	X		Strong agreement
Type 2
Diabetic foot lesions	X		Strong agreeement
Femoral head necrosis	X		Strong agreeement
Compromised skin grafts and musculo-		X	Strong agreeement
cutaneous flaps
Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO)		X	Strong agreement
Crush Injury without fracture		X	Agreement
Osteoradionecrosis (bones other than mandible)		X	Agreement
Radio-induced lesions of soft tissues		X	Agreement
(other than cystitis and proctitis)
Surgery and implant in irradiated tissue		X	Agreement
(preventive treatment)
Ischaemic ulcers		X	Agreement
Refractory chronic osteomyelitis		X	Agreement
Burns, 2nd degree more than 20% BSA		X	Agreement
Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis		X	Agreement
Neuroblastoma, stage IV		X	Agreement
Type 3
Brain injury (acute and chronic TBI, chronic stroke,		X	Agreement
post anoxic encephalopathy) in highly selected patients
Radio-induced lesions of larynx		X	Agreement
Radio-induced lesions of the CNS		X	Agreement
Limb replantation		X	Agreement
Selected non-healing wounds secondary		X	Agreement
to systemic processes
Sickle cell disease		X	Agreement
Interstitial cystitis		X	Agreement

Table 1 described the relation between strength of recommendations given by the Jury of the Consensus Conference and the level of evidence based on the GRADE system. There should be a clear and straight relation showing that Level 1 "strong recommendation" should be based on GRADE A "high level of evidence (LOE)", Level 2 "weak recommendation" should be based on GRADE B "moderate LOE", Level 3 "neutral recommendation" should be based on GRADE C "low LOE" and finally no recommendation should be given when only GRADE D "very low LOE" are present. Note that there is no change to the content of the table, but only visual representation of this relationship.

Table 2 has been incorrectly printed. In fact, there is no GRADE A LOE. All X marks placed in the column A should be moved to the right, to GRADE B LOE. In the same way, all X marks placed in the column B should be moved to the right, to GRADE C LOE. We voluntarily retract these tables from the above-mentioned publication, expressing our regret for the situation."

The corrected Tables 1 and 2 are published below and have been corrected in the pdf version of the March 2017 issue on the society websites.