The authors note that the following statements regarding the SeroTracker dashboard did not accurately reflect SeroTracker's processes and dashboard.
In the Introduction there is a statement that reads:
Further, global dashboard of seroprevalence studies, SeroTracker, provides an automated country-wise pooled estimate, has duplicate entries of the same study from multiple sources, has unverified sources, and quality of data for many studies (SeroTracker 2020).
Instead this should have read:
Further, global dashboard of seroprevalence studies, SeroTracker, conducts a live systematic review and provides the descriptive analysis of seroprevalence studies. However, the pooled seroprevalence estimates for India are unavailable. (SeroTracker 2020).
In addition, the following three statements in the Discussion are incorrect and should not have been included in the article:
The pooled estimates for the 2 waves from the current meta-analysis are different from that reported in SeroTracker (SeroTracker 2020). This could be owing to pooling of estimates from studies done during first and second waves in the SeroTracker and different inclusion/exclusion criteria.
For instance, SeroTracker included studies among convalescent blood donors, whereas we did not.
SeroTracker categorizes them into many overlapping categories (for instance: “household and community samples” and “multiple general populations”), which could have led to biased subgroup estimates.
The authors regret any inconvenience caused.