Skip to main content

Advertisement

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

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.

Fig. 8
figurea

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

Fig. 8
figure1

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”

Fig. 9
figureb

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.”

Fig. 9
figure2

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”

Fig. 10
figurec

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”.

Fig. 10
figure3

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”

Fig. 11
figured

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”

Fig. 11
figure4

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”

Reference

  1. 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

Download references

Author information

Additional information

The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0393-z.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This 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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark