In the published article, there were three instances where there was a mistake in the cited references. This is because the references were renumbered sequentially after revision of manuscript.
In the Results section, the sentence “By comparison, a non-linear dose–response meta-analysis with 13 eligible studies (37-39, 42, 48, 55-57, 60, 61, 66, 83, 84)” has been changed to “By comparison, a non-linear dose–response meta-analysis with 13 eligible studies (37, 38, 42, 47, 48, 55-57, 60, 61, 66, 83, 84)”.
In the Results section, the sentence “Another negative linearity association also existed between the CDDD and the incidence risk of endometrial, corpus uteri, and cervical cancer, from four eligible studies (30, 33, 34, 72)” has been changed to “Another negative linearity association also existed between the CDDD and the incidence risk of endometrial, corpus uteri, and cervical cancer, from four eligible studies (28, 45, 49, 86)”.
In the Discussion section, the sentence “Moreover, different from several studies that have found that prolactin may encourage the development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (89) and higher risk in in situ (51, 85)” has been changed to “Moreover, different from several studies that have found that prolactin may encourage the development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (89) and higher risk in in situ (52, 85)”.
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.