Figures
During a secondary analysis, the authors discovered 147 duplicate entries in their study database that consists of over 30,000 entries. The duplication of entries was randomly distributed and after reanalysis only minor changes in effect measures, which do not impact the authors’ conclusions, were observed. For example, the notification rate ratio for laboratory confirmed TB (the study’s primary endpoint) was 1.59 (95% CI 1.31–1.88) in the original analysis and 1.60 (95% CI 1.31–1.89) in the revised analysis. A revised version of Table 4 is presented below.
Reference
Citation: Durovni B, Saraceni V, van den Hof S, Trajman A, Cordeiro-Santos M, Cavalcante S, et al. (2015) Correction: Impact of Replacing Smear Microscopy with Xpert MTB/RIF for Diagnosing Tuberculosis in Brazil: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial. PLoS Med 12(12): e1001928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001928
Published: December 3, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Durovni et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited