Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
In the article titled “Contralateral Eye-to-Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published online October 16, 2014, and also in the January 2015 issue of JAMA Ophthalmology (2015;133:51-59. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3876), incorrect data appeared in a sentence in the Abstract as well as in Table 2. In the first sentence of the Abstract’s Results section, the first set of parenthetical data in the portion concerning higher-order root-mean-square aberrations should have read as follows: “(WFG: mean, −0.07 [95% CI, −0.12 to −0.02]; WFO: mean, −0.12 [95% CI, −0.17 to −0.07]).” In addition, in Table 2 on page 55, the data for HOAs (higher-order root-mean-square aberrations) in the WFO (wavefront optimized) column should have appeared as “−0.12 (95% CI, −0.17 to −0.07).” This article was corrected online.
Incorrect Data in Abstract and Table. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):621. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0853
Coronavirus Resource Center
Create a personal account or sign in to: