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. 2000;284:45.

In the Review entitled "Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis" published in the December 1, 1999, issue of THE JOURNAL (1999;282:2058-2067), there were errors in the figures and tables. On page 2060, Table 2, under "High-Intensity OA vs Control," MacMillan et al, the value for "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to Control Therapy" should have been 0/23 (0); under "High- or Moderate-Intensity OA vs Aspirin," the total value for "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to OA Therapy" should have been 121/1750 (6.9) and the P value for Kraska et al should have been .54; under "High- or Moderate-Intensity OA and Aspirin vs Aspirin," ATACS, the value for "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to Control Therapy" should have been 1/32 (3.1) and the total line for this column should have been 8/240 (3.3); and the events prevented/1000 patients treated in the double dagger footnote should have been 3 and the events prevented/1000 patients treated in the parallel footnote should have been 16. On page 2061, Table 3, the P values that were zeros should have been <.001; under "High-Intensity OA vs Control," for "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to OA Therapy," the total value should have been 517/4967 (10.4); and the events prevented/1000 patients treated in the dagger footnote should have been 60. On page 2062, Figure 1, under "High-Intensity Oral Anticoagulant vs Control (No Aspirin)," the oral anticoagulant bar value for "Myocardial Infarction" should have been 10.4. On page 2063, Table 5, under "High-Intensity OA vs Control," the P value for Seaman et al should have been .001; under "High- and Moderate-Intensity OA vs Aspirin," EPSIM, the "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to OA Therapy" should have been 84/652 (12.9), the "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to Control Therapy" should have been 91/651 (14.0), and the total line should have been 135/1064 (12.7), 135/1071 (12.6), .78; and the events prevented/1000 patients treated in the double daggar footnote should have been -1. On page 2064, Table 6, the P value for Seaman et al should have been .03. On page 2065, Table 7, under "High-Intensity OA vs Control," the P value for Apenstrom and Korsan-Bengtsen should have been .94; under "High- or Moderate-Intensity OA vs Aspirin," the P value for Breddin et al should have been .43, and the total line should have been 70/1750 (4.0), 45/1731 (2.6), <.001; and under "Low-Intensity OA and Aspirin vs Aspirin," OASIS Pilot I, the "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to OA Therapy" should have been 4/155 (2.3), the "No./Total (%) of Subjects Allocated to Control Therapy" should have been 0/154 (0), and the total line should have been 99/4211 (2.3), 77/4244 (1.8), .09. On page 2066, Table 8, the P values that were zeros should have been <.001 and under "High-Intensity OA vs Control," the P value for Drapkin and Merskey should have been .44. In Figure 2, under "High- to Moderate-Intensity Oral Anticoagulant vs Aspirin," the oral anticoagulant bar value for "Mortality" should have been 6.9 and for "Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke" the oral anticoagulant bar value should have been 12.7; and under "Moderate- to High-Intensity Oral Anticoagulant and Aspirin vs Aspirin," the control bar value for "Mortality" should have been 3.3. These corrections do not change the study conclusions.

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