[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 658
Citations 0
Correction
June 19, 2018

Incorrect Data in Table Footnote and Text

JAMA. 2018;319(23):2443. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7574

In the Clinical Review entitled “Does This Patient Have Acute Mountain Sickness? The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review” published in the November 14, 2017, issue of JAMA,1 a numeric value in the equation in footnote a of Table 2 was incorrect. The footnote should have read: “Based on the random-effects meta-regression model of the 6 scores in 91 studies, the predicted prevalence (%) ≈ 13.4 × [altitude (m)/1000] − 14.2. For example, travelers at 2500 m would have an estimated prevalence of 19% ≈ 13.4 × [2500/1000] – 14.2.” In the Scenario Resolution section, the second sentence should have read: “Based on our model, predicted prevalence of moderate to severe AMS at 4000 m (13 100 ft) is approximately 39% (Figure).” The fourth sentence in the Scenario Resolution section should have read: “Thus, the probability that the patient has AMS is approximately 67%.” This article was corrected online.

References
1.
Meier  D, Collet  T-H, Locatelli  I,  et al.  Does this patient have acute mountain sickness: the Rational Clinical Examination systematic review.  JAMA. 318(18):1810-1919. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.16192Google ScholarCrossref
×