Correction to: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (2022) 10.1007/s00127-022-02261-7
In the abstract, line 1 of method, it says '…hand-searched 'of' references. The word 'of' should not be present. It should read: …'hand-searched references… Language editor missed to delete “of”
In the abstract, a semicolon appears in the final paragraph of the abstract (conclusion)—it should not be there. It says: 'there is evidence; …' This is not present in the version I originally submitted. Language editor misunderstood this for two separate sentences and introduced semicolon.
In the 'Methods', paragraph 4, it says 'searches were conducted subject headings…'; it should read 'searches were conducted using subject headings.' The word 'using' is missing. Please add it. Language editor missed to insert the word “using”.
In 'Results' paragraph 2, it says: 'ranging from 34 to 559 362'—for some reason there are commas appearing in the wrong parts of the number. Please correct. This error was introduced by the technical editor by mistake.
Also in 'Results', paragraph 2, it reads. …'the included papers covered 651 217 people..' but there is again a comma in the number that is not appropriate. This error was introduced by the technical editor by mistake.
pg 14, paragraph 4, 'Discussion', line 14: '…our review found that evidence loneliness can lead to the onset…' It should read. 'our review found evidence that loneliness can lead…' This is not present in the version I originally submitted. This typo error was introduced by the Language editor. He tried to insert "that" after the word "evidence". It was done by mistake.
pg 14 paragraph 4, 'Discussion', line 19 it says: 'to draw firm conclusions, which is also important…' The word 'which' should not be there. It was not in the version I submitted to SPPE. The comma before ‘is’ can be removed if you prefer it that way,and ‘which’ taken out please. There was a comma before "is", so the Language editor inserted "which".
A minor error under ‘Policy Implications’ para 1, column 2, line 9, it should say ‘sit’ and not ‘sits’.
The original article has been corrected.