The authors regret that due to a preprint mistake, few modifications were not reported properly to the final version. These changes do not affect any conclusions.
- Abstract: “(OR = 1.44, IC 95 [1.31–1.58], p < 0.001) or very important financial issues (OR = 2.47, IC 95 [2.15–2.85], p < 0.001), experienced humiliation (OR = 1.63, IC 95 [1.46–1.81], p < 0.001), sexual harassment (OR = 1.43, IC 95 [1.28–1.59], p < 0.001) and sexual abuse (OR = 1.52, IC 95 [1.24–1.85], p < 0.001)”
- IC should have been replaced by CI. The correct sentence is: “(OR = 1.44, CI 95 [1.31–1.58], p < 0.001) or very important financial issues (OR = 2.47, CI 95 [2.15–2.85], p < 0.001), experienced humiliation (OR = 1.63, CI 95 [1.46–1.81], p < 0.001), sexual harassment (OR = 1.43, CI 95 [1.28–1.59], p < 0.001) and sexual abuse (OR = 1.52, CI 95 [1.24–1.85], p < 0.001)”
- P126–127: “Multivariate binary logistic regression identified the same associations. Being a woman (OR = 1.14, IC 95 [1.04;1.26], p = 0.007), single (OR = 1.20, IC 95 [1.10–1.32], p < 0.001), preclinical level (OR = 1.43, IC 95 [1.19–1.72] p < 0.001), having important (OR = 1.44, IC 95 [1.31–1.58], p < 0.001) or very important financial issues (OR = 2.47, IC 95 [2.15–2.85], p < 0.001), having experienced humiliation (OR = 63, IC 95 [1.46–1.81], p < 0.001), sexual harassment (OR = 1.43, IC95 [1.28–1.59], p < 0.001) or sexual abuse (OR = 1.52, IC 95 [1.24–1.85], p < 0.001) during the curriculum were associated with an increased risk of MDE.”
- OR and CI values corrections were not reported. The correct values are in Table 2. IC should have been replaced by CI. The correct paragraph is: Multivariate binary logistic regressions identified the same associations. Being a woman (OR = 1.14, CI95 [1.04;1.26], p = 0.007), single (OR = 1.19, CI95 [1.10–1.32], p < 0.001), preclinical level (OR = 1.20, CI95 [1.00–1.45] p = 0.045) compare to residents, having important (OR = 1.49, CI95 [1.36–1.63], p < 0.001) or very important financial issues (OR = 2.73, CI95 [2.37–3.13], p < 0.001), having experienced humiliation (OR = 1.86, CI95 [1.60–2.06], p < 0.001), sexual harassment (OR = 1.75, CI95 [1.58–1.94], p < 0.001) or sexual abuse (OR = 2.06, IC 95 [1.70–2.49], p < 0.001) during the curriculum were associated with an increased risk of MDE.
- P126: “With >10 cut-off for HAD-D last week depression showed had worse sensitivity (37,8% vs. 64,5%) and better specificity (89,3% vs. 70,6%) than with >7 cut-off to detect last year MDE cases measured with CIDI-SF”. Words “last week depression showed” and “to detect last year MDE cases measured with CIDI-SF” were missing.
- The correct sentence is: With >10 cut-off for HAD-D last week depression showed had worse sensitivity (37,8% vs. 64,5%) and better specificity (89,3% vs. 70,6%) than with >7 cut-off to detect last year MDE cases measured with CIDI-SF.
- P128: “This leads sometimes to a false impression of deterioration or improvement between two studies that could otherwise be explained by different used cut-offs or time periods for estimating prevalences”. The end of the sentence “or time periods for estimating prevalences” is missing.
- The correct sentence is: This leads sometimes to a false impression of deterioration or improvement between two studies that could otherwise be explained by different used cut-offs or time periods for estimating prevalences.
- P128: “These results should be interpreted with caution. For instance, many studies used Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) [31]: 15 studies used a cut-off ≥5 with a mean prevalence of 49% IC 95 [39–58], whereas 7 studies used a cut-off ≥10 with a mean prevalence of 28% IC 95 [13–46]”
- IC should have been replaced by CI. The correct sentence is: “These results should be interpreted with caution. For instance, many studies used Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) [31]: 15 studies used a cut-off ≥5 with a mean prevalence of 49% CI 95 [39–58], whereas 7 studies used a cut-off ≥10 with a mean prevalence of 28% CI 95 [13–46]”
- P 129: “Using both HAD and CIDI-SF allows us to assess sensibility and specificity but only for HAD depression, however we couldn't control for 12 month MDE cases in remission with a lower level or without current symptoms”. The end of the sentence “, however we couldn't control for 12 month MDE cases in remission with a lower level or without current symptoms” is missing.
- The correct sentence is: Using both HAD and CIDI-SF allows us to assess sensibility and specificity but only for HAD depression, however we couldn't control for 12 month MDE cases in remission with a lower level or without current symptoms.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.