Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10314-9, published online 19 April 2022
The original version of this Article contained errors in Tables 2 and 3. Under the heading ‘Resistant’, the values in the column ‘%age’ were a duplicate of the values in the column ‘proportion’. The correct and incorrect values appear below.
Incorrect Table 2:
| Antimicrobials | Resistant |
|---|---|
| %age | |
| Colistin | 0.00 |
| Meropenem | 0.50 |
| Gentamicin | 0.54 |
| Amikacin | 0.55 |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam | 0.57 |
| Imipenem | 0.53 |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | 0.57 |
| Levofloxacin | 0.77 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.72 |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam | 0.85 |
| Cefepime | 0.71 |
| Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 0.57 |
| Ceftazidime | 0.62 |
Correct Table 2:
| Antimicrobials | Resistant |
|---|---|
| %age | |
| Colistin | 0 |
| Meropenem | 50 |
| Gentamicin | 54 |
| Amikacin | 55 |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam | 57 |
| Imipenem | 53 |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | 57 |
| Levofloxacin | 77 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 72 |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam | 85 |
| Cefepime | 71 |
| Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 57 |
| Ceftazidime | 62 |
Incorrect Table 3:
| Antimicrobials | Resistant |
|---|---|
| %age | |
| Colistin | 0.00 |
| Amikacin | 0.52 |
| Gentamicin | 0.68 |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam | 0.68 |
| Meropenem | 0.70 |
| Imipenem | 0.72 |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | 0.76 |
| Levofloxacin | 0.82 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.82 |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam | 0.85 |
| Cefepime | 0.86 |
| Aztreonam | 0.92 |
| Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 0.96 |
Correct Table 3:
| Antimicrobials | Resistant |
|---|---|
| %age | |
| Colistin | 0 |
| Amikacin | 52 |
| Gentamicin | 68 |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam | 68 |
| Meropenem | 70 |
| Imipenem | 72 |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | 76 |
| Levofloxacin | 82 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 82 |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam | 85 |
| Cefepime | 86 |
| Aztreonam | 92 |
| Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 96 |
Additionally, in Table 4, under ‘P. aeruginosa’, ‘Colistin-dHAM (%age)’, the values for ‘aComparison between and within groups (7th day), p value = 0.000*’ and ‘Comparison between and within groups (14th day), p value = 0.012*’ were interchanged. The correct and incorrect values appear below.
Incorrect Table 4:
| Days | Statistical measures | Treatment groups (zones of inhibition in mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Colistin-dHAM (%age) | ||
| P. aeruginosa | ||
| aComparison between and within groups (7th day), p value = 0.000* | ||
| 7th day |
Mean ± SD b(p values) |
36.0 ± 6.1 (p: 0.001*) |
| Comparison between and within groups (14th day), p value = 0.012* | ||
| 14th day |
Mean ± SD (p values) |
32.3 ± 11.0 (p: 0.014*) |
Correct Table 4:
| Days | Statistical measures | Treatment groups (zones of inhibition in mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Colistin-dHAM (%age) | ||
| P. aeruginosa | ||
| aComparison between and within groups (7th day), p value = 0.000* | ||
| 7th day |
Mean ± SD b(p values) |
32.3 ± 11.0 (p: 0.014*) |
| Comparison between and within groups (14th day), p value = 0.012* | ||
| 14th day |
Mean ± SD (p values) |
36.0 ± 6.1 (p: 0.001*) |
The original Article has been corrected.
Contributor Information
Nadia Wali, Email: dr.nadia.wali@gmail.com.
Syed Zeeshan Haider Naqvi, Email: zeeshan.haider@imbb.uol.edu.pk.
