[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
Purchase Options:
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 876
Citations 0
Correction
February 25, 2020

Incomplete Intervention Description, Incorrect Exploratory Outcome Data, and Incorrect Axis Labels

JAMA. 2020;323(8):793. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.0373

In the Original Investigation titled “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Oxygen With Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Alone on Reintubation Among Patients at High Risk of Extubation Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial”1 published in the October 15, 2019, issue of JAMA, one of the interventions was incompletely described in the Abstract and Methods section. It should have specified that patients received either high-flow nasal oxygen alone or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with noninvasive ventilation.

Also, incorrect data were reported in the Exploratory Outcomes subsection of the Results section. The first sentence of the third paragraph in that section should have read as follows: “Among the 88 patients who had postextubation respiratory failure with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, 28 patients (32%) were treated with noninvasive ventilation as rescue therapy delivered for a mean (SD) of 20 (18) hours, of whom 12 patients (43%) needed reintubation.

And the x-axis labels of Figure 2 and Figure 3 should have been as follows: “Time Since Extubation, d.” This article was corrected online.

References
1.
Thille  AW, Muller  G, Gacouin  A,  et al; HIGH-WEAN Study Group and REVA Research Network.  Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal oxygen alone on reintubation among patients at high risk of extubation failure: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2019;322(15):1465-1475. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.14901PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×