Limits...
Correction.

- BMJ Open (2012)

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

After review of the data it appears that the authors accidentally miscoded several points in the data set, which have resulted in an error in the published article ( The Pearson correlation between prostate cancer incidence in Europe and oral mode the adjusted estimates for the association of oral contraceptive use with prostate of prostate cancer mortality rates with oral contraceptive use was not statistically significant (r=0.16, p=0.1 not 0.53, p<0.05)... Figure 2 has been changed... With hindsight, after correcting the data it had been: ‘Oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer incidence: an ecologic study’... Data deposited in the Dryad repository: doi:10.5061/dryad.ff6bd0pq (http://datadryad.org/).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(A) Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence. (B)Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence in Europe.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400805&req=5

fig1: (A) Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence. (B)Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence in Europe.

Mentions: After review of the data it appears that the authors accidentally miscoded several pointsin the data set, which have resulted in an error in the published article (BMJ Open 2011;1:e000311. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000311). In the abstract the year used to retrieve agestandardised incidence and mortality rates was the 2008 and not 2007 dataset (the correctyear is mentioned in the methods section and in the references), and the number ofcountries was 88 (as appears in the appendix) and not 87. The Pearson correlation betweenprostate cancer incidence in nations' world-wide and oral contraceptive use was 0.58and not 0.61. The Pearson correlation between prostate cancer incidence in Europe and oralcontraceptive use was 0.59 and not 0.55. Prostate cancer incidence correlated with condomuse in nations worldwide (r=0.48) but not in Europe or by continent. Figure 1A,B have been corrected. In the multivariablemode the adjusted estimates for the association of oral contraceptive use with prostatecancer incidence is 0.65 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.01), p=0.001 (not 1.06 (95% CI 0.58 to1.6)). Table 1 has been corrected. The correlationof prostate cancer mortality rates with oral contraceptive use was not statisticallysignificant (r=0.16, p=0.1 not 0.53, p<0.05). Figure 2 has been changed. With hindsight, after correcting the dataand the analysis, the title of the manuscript would have been less easily misinterpreted ifit had been: ‘Oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer incidence:an ecologic study’.


Correction.

- BMJ Open (2012)

(A) Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence. (B)Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence in Europe.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400805&req=5

fig1: (A) Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence. (B)Correlation between contraceptive mode and prostate cancer incidence in Europe.
Mentions: After review of the data it appears that the authors accidentally miscoded several pointsin the data set, which have resulted in an error in the published article (BMJ Open 2011;1:e000311. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000311). In the abstract the year used to retrieve agestandardised incidence and mortality rates was the 2008 and not 2007 dataset (the correctyear is mentioned in the methods section and in the references), and the number ofcountries was 88 (as appears in the appendix) and not 87. The Pearson correlation betweenprostate cancer incidence in nations' world-wide and oral contraceptive use was 0.58and not 0.61. The Pearson correlation between prostate cancer incidence in Europe and oralcontraceptive use was 0.59 and not 0.55. Prostate cancer incidence correlated with condomuse in nations worldwide (r=0.48) but not in Europe or by continent. Figure 1A,B have been corrected. In the multivariablemode the adjusted estimates for the association of oral contraceptive use with prostatecancer incidence is 0.65 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.01), p=0.001 (not 1.06 (95% CI 0.58 to1.6)). Table 1 has been corrected. The correlationof prostate cancer mortality rates with oral contraceptive use was not statisticallysignificant (r=0.16, p=0.1 not 0.53, p<0.05). Figure 2 has been changed. With hindsight, after correcting the dataand the analysis, the title of the manuscript would have been less easily misinterpreted ifit had been: ‘Oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer incidence:an ecologic study’.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

After review of the data it appears that the authors accidentally miscoded several points in the data set, which have resulted in an error in the published article ( The Pearson correlation between prostate cancer incidence in Europe and oral mode the adjusted estimates for the association of oral contraceptive use with prostate of prostate cancer mortality rates with oral contraceptive use was not statistically significant (r=0.16, p=0.1 not 0.53, p<0.05)... Figure 2 has been changed... With hindsight, after correcting the data it had been: ‘Oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer incidence: an ecologic study’... Data deposited in the Dryad repository: doi:10.5061/dryad.ff6bd0pq (http://datadryad.org/).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus