This Article  • PDF of this Correction  • Original article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JAMA. 2004;292:2583.

Errors in Data Reporting: In the Original Contribution entitled "Metabolic Effects of Carvedilol vs Metoprolol in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial" published in the November 10, 2004, issue of THE JOURNAL (2004;292:2227-2236), there were multiple errors in data. On page 2227, in the Results section of the Abstract, " . . . the between-group difference was –7.2% (95% CI, –13.8% to –0.2%; P = .004)." should have read " . . . the between-group difference was –7.2% (95% CI, –13.8% to –0.2%; P = .04)." and " . . . with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04)." should have read " . . . with metoprolol (6.6% vs 11.1%; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.93; P = .03)." On page 2231, in the third column, second line, "P = .004" should have read "P = .04"; and in Table 3 on the same page, the P value for the mean HOMA-IR treatment difference should have been.04 instead of.004; and the baseline mean LDL cholesterol level for carvedilol should have been 96.7 instead of 186.6. On page 2232, in the first column, second paragraph, " . . . 77 (20%) of 388 participants . . . " should have read " . . . 76 (20%) of 388 participants . . . " and further down in the same paragraph, " . . . (25 [6.4%] of 388 in the carvedilol group vs 56 [10.3%] of 542 in the metoprolol group; odds ratio [OR] for carvedilol vs metoprolol, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04)." should have read " . . . (20 [6.6%] of 302 in the carvedilol group vs 48 [11.1%] of 431 in the metoprolol group; odds ratio [OR] for carvedilol vs metoprolol, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.93; P = .03)."

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?