[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 990
Citations 0
November 15, 2016

Error in Abstract

JAMA. 2016;316(19):2047-2048. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16337

In the Original Investigation entitled “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial,”1 published online October 5, 2016, and in the October 18, 2016, print issue of JAMA, there was an error in the wording of the second sentence of the abstract’s Results section. The sentence should read as follows: “Sixty-six patients (22.8%) in the high-flow group vs 60 (19.1%) in the NIV group were reintubated (absolute difference, −3.7%; 95% CI, −9.1% to ∞); 78 patients (26.9%) in the high-flow group vs 125 (39.8%) in the NIV group experienced postextubation respiratory failure (risk difference, 12.9%; 95% CI, 6.6% to ∞).” This article was corrected online.

Hernández  G, Vaquero  C, Colinas  L,  et al.  Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14194