Figures
Within Fig 3, Fig 3A and 3B are incorrectly reversed. The authors have provided the correct Fig 3 here.
3A: One-way sensitivity analysis, risk and HT based strategy. Fig 3B: One-way sensitivity analysis, risk based strategy. Legend Fig 3A and 3B: Presents the change in ICER (incremental costs per DALY averted) compared to the baseline when parameter input is either varied in a high and low bound or when parameter input is varied to an alternative scenario (presented as lower bound). Darker and lighter bars represent the change in ICER when a parameter is varied to a respectively lower value (or alternative scenario) and higher value compared to the baseline estimate. *effect of treatment on SBP: -14.6, coverage of 100% for eligible patients and no disability loss for hypertension treatment. ^based on observed costs in a scenario when limited diagnostic testing and task-shifting from doctors to nurses[24]. Abbreviations: SBP: systolic blood pressure; CHD: coronary heart disease; LVH: left ventricle hypertrophy. noHT: no hypertension; HT1: hypertension stage 1; HT2: hypertension stage 2. All values for the parameters tested as well as resulting ICERs are reported in Tables K and L (S1 File).
There is an error in Table 1. The row “Relative risk reduction (RRR0 per 10 mmHg SBP decrease” was incorrectly omitted. The publisher apologizes for this error.
Reference
Citation: The PLOS ONE Staff (2016) Correction: Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Screening and Treatment in Adults with Hypertension in Rural Nigeria in the Context of a Health Insurance Program. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0162421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162421
Published: September 12, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 The PLOS ONE Staff. 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.