Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Correction to: Diagnostic performance of semi-quantitative and quantitative stress CMR perfusion analysis: a meta-analysis

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201820:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0421-z

Received: 27 November 2017

Accepted: 29 November 2017

Published: 4 January 2018

The original article was published in Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017 19:92

Correction

In the original publication of this article there was an error in Figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11. During typesetting the Figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been incorrectly swapped. In this “publisher correction” the correct and the incorrect figures are published. The original publication has been updated. BioMed central apologizes to the authors and readers for any inconvenience caused.

Figure
Fig. 8

The original publication of Figure 8 with the caption “Deeks’ funnel plots of the studies on per segment (a), per territory (b), and per patient (c) basis. P-value <0.05 indicative of publication bias or systematic difference between results of larger and smaller studies

Figure 1
Fig. 8

The corrected publication of Figure 8. with the caption “Deeks’ funnel plots of the studies on per segment (a), per territory (b), and per patient (c) basis. P-value < 0.05 indicative of publication bias or systematic difference between results of larger and smaller studies”

Figure
Fig. 9

The original publication of Figure 9 with the caption: “Deeks’ funnel plots of the subgroup analysis on per territory basis with anatomical reference standard (a), functional reference standard (b), semi-quantitative analysis (c), and quantitative analysis (d). P-value < 0.05 indicative of publication bias or systematic difference between results of larger and smaller studies.”

Figure 2
Fig. 9

The corrected publication of Figure 9 with the caption: “Deeks’ funnel plots of the subgroup analysis on per territory basis with anatomical reference standard (a), functional reference standard (b), semi-quantitative analysis (c), and quantitative analysis (d). P-value < 0.05 indicative of publication bias or systematic difference between results of larger and smaller studies”

Figure
Fig. 10

The original publication of Figure 10 with the caption: “ and applicability concerns across the included studies as assessed with QUADAS-2 forms by the reviewers”.

Figure 3
Fig. 10

The corrected publication of Figure 10 with the caption: “Summary of the risk of bias and applicability concerns across the included studies as assessed with QUADAS-2 forms by the reviewers”

Figure
Fig. 11

The original publication of Figure 11 with the caption: “Risk of bias and applicability concerns assessment with an overview of the reviewers judgment about each separate domain for each included study”

Figure 4
Fig. 11

The corrected publication of Figure 11 with the caption: “Risk of bias and applicability concerns assessment with an overview of the reviewers judgment abeout each separate domain for each included study”

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
, London, UK

Reference

  1. van Dijk, R., van Assen, M., Vliegenthart, R. et al. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson (2017) 19: 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0393-z

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement