Multack S, Pan LC, Timmons SK, et al. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:1–13.
Page 2, second paragraph from the bottom, fifth sentence, line four, the text “using an SS-OCT biometer” should read “using an SS-OCT w/ORT biometer”.
Page 11, second paragraph, fourth and fifth sentences, the text “All four articles found that the SS-OCT w/ORT biometer has the lowest acquisition rate when compared to all biometers, except when compared to the use of a contact ultrasound biometer. Acquisition rates ranged from 0.6% to 4% for the SS-OCT w/ORT biometer, 3% to 7.4% for the SS-OCT biometer, 15% to 23% for the PCI biometer, and 3% to 21% for the OLCR biometer” should read “All four articles found that the SS-OCT w/ORT biometer has the lowest acquisition failure rate when compared to all biometers, except when compared to the use of a contact ultrasound biometer. Acquisition failure rates ranged from 0.6% to 4% for the SS-OCT w/ORT biometer, 3% to 7.4% for the SS-OCT biometer, 15% to 23% for the PCI biometer, and 3% to 21% for the OLCR biometer”.
The authors apologize for these errors and advise they do not affect the interpretation of the data and the conclusion of the study.