Correction to: BMC Urol 2021 21(1):180 10.1186/s12894-021-00946-w
Following publication of the original article [1], it was noted that due to a typesetting error the Fig. 1 was incorrect. The correct figure is given below.
Fig. 1.
Flow diagram of patient enrolment
Second, the authors would like to correct the reference number in the second paragraph under the heading Discussion section.
The sentence should read:
Although observation at 2–4 h after 5-ALA oral administration is recommended, the time of 5-ALA exposure to light may be less important, as it has been shown that no significant difference exists between exposure times of 2–3 h and 4 h or more [13].
The original article [1] has been corrected.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Hiroki Hagimoto, Email: hiroki1104hagimoto@gmail.com.
Noriyuki Makita, Email: makitanoriyuki0312@gmail.com.
Yuta Mine, Email: yuta.mine.6518@gmail.com.
Hidetoshi Kokubun, Email: new.york.times.3336@gmail.com.
Shiori Murata, Email: s.muracha0228@gmail.com.
Yohei Abe, Email: sun.flat21@gmail.com.
Masashi Kubota, Email: kubotamasahi@gmail.com.
Naofumi Tsutsumi, Email: rokkou064tamago@yahoo.ne.jp.
Toshinari Yamasaki, Email: toshinari_yamasaki@kcho.jp.
Mutsushi Kawakita, Email: m22k74@gmail.com.
Reference
- 1.Hagimoto, et al. Comparison between 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic diagnosis and narrow-band imaging for bladder cancer detection. BMC Urol. 2021;21(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00946-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]