| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
|
|
|
|||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
In the September 2005 issue, the article by Fregonezi et al, "Effects of 8-Week, Interval-Based Inspiratory Muscle Training and Breathing Retraining in Patients With Generalized Myasthenia Gravis" (Chest 2005; 128:1524–1530
), contains an error. In Figure 2 on page 1528, in the part of the figure titled "Lower chest wall," for both training groups, the "
" symbol should be eliminated.
In the September 2005 issue, the article by Mehta et al (Chest 2005; 128:1742–1755 ) contains an incorrect word in the title. The correct title of the article is "American College of Chest Physicians and American Association for Bronchology Consensus Statement: Prevention of Flexible Bronchoscopy-Associated Infection."
In the July 2005 issue, the article by Blitz and colleagues, "Aerosolized Magnesium Sulfate for Acute Asthma: A Systematic Review" (Chest 2005; 128:337–344 ), was published prior to author approval. The manuscript contains errors that were corrected by the authors in their latest revised manuscript; however, an older version of the article appeared in the journal. The Editors apologize to the readers for this error, and to the authors for this inconvenience. The corrections are as follows.
In Figure 1, the correct mean values from the article by Bessmertny 2002 (reference 18 in the article) are 63.0 (SD, 21.9) for the treatment group and 68.0 (SD, 21.9) for the control group (study SMD, –0.23; 95% CI, –0.68 to 0.23). The mean values for Hughes 2003 (reference 19 in the article) are 1.86 (SD, 0.67) for the treatment group, and 1.44 (SD, 0.65) for the control group (study SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.19). The revised pooled estimate should be 0.22 (95% CI, –0.02 to 0.47).
The "Results" section of the "Abstract" should read as follows: "There was a non-significant increase in pulmonary function between patients whose treatments included nebulized MgSO4 and those whose treatments did not (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.47; five studies); there was also a trend toward reduced hospitalizations in patients whose treatments included nebulized MgSO4 (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.09; four studies)."
The "Pulmonary Function Effects" subsection of the "Results" section should read as follows: "Patients receiving MgSO4 therapy, with or without a ß2-agonist, showed improvement compared to those receiving a ß2-agonist alone (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.47; p = 0.08), with moderate between-study heterogeneity identified (Fig 1). Notably, the effect was similar in a comparison of therapy with a ß2-agonist with MgSO4 compared to that with a ß2-agonist with normal saline solution (SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, –0.03 to 0.50; p = 0.09). However, there was no evidence of an advantage for therapy with MgSO4 alone compared to that with a ß2-agonist alone (SMD, 0.17; 95% CI, –0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.62; one study)."
"In subgroup analyses, a nonsignificant advantage of any use of MgSO4 with or without a ß2-agonist over the use of a ß2-agonist alone was demonstrated in adults (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, –0.13 to 0.50; p = 0.25), but not in children (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, –0.14 to 0.86; p = 0.16; one study). A benefit of MgSO4 treatment was observed among patients with severe asthma at presentation, at which time the SMD in this group was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.80; p = 0.02; heterogeneity, p = 0.60; I2 = 0%), but not in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma at presentation (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, –0.30 to 0.38; p = 0.82; heterogeneity, p = 0.09; I2 = 64.8%). Although the CIs were wider, the results were similar when random-effects methods were employed."
In the June 2005 issue, the response to the Letter by Lotke, "Risk vs Benefits for Thomboembolic Disease After Total Joint Surgery" (Chest 2005; 127:2297–2298 ), was incorrect. The correct response by Geerts et al appears on page 3775 of this issue. The Letter by Jean-Louis Vincent that did appear as a response should have appeared as a response to the Letter by Thomas and Munoz on page 2296.
In the August 2005 issue, in the article by Lepper et al, "A Case of Sudden Cardiac Death Due to Isolated Eosinophilic Coronary Arteritis" (Chest 2005; 128:1047–1050 ), Figure 1 needs to be corrected. The corrected figure appears below.
|
Related Articles
Chest 2005 128: 1524-1530.
Chest 2005 128: 1742-1755.
Chest 2005 128: 1047-1050.
Chest 2005 128: 337-344.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
