[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
January 2020

Errors in Results, Table, and Figure

JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138(1):105. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.5692

In the Special Communication article “Assessing the Use of Incorrectly Scaled Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Images in Peer-Reviewed Studies: A Systematic Review,”1 there were errors in the Results section, Table 2, and Figure 2. In the Results section, the phrase “were put back into the flowchart along with the 468 that did not measure axial length” should have said “…along with the 388 that did not….” In Table 2, the citation number on Kurokawa et al should have been 36, not 2. In Figure 2, labels for “yes” and “no” were missing along arrows pointing to boxes that said “509 Included” and “480 articles excluded from further review,” respectively. Finally, in Figure 2, an arrow from a box that says “Did the authors report measuring axial length?” to a box that says “Was this mentioned as a limitation of the study?” needed to be rerouted to the box that says “388 articles” to more accurately represent the flow of articles through the study procedures. These errors have been corrected.

Llanas  S, Linderman  RE, Chen  FK, Carroll  J.  Assessing the use of incorrectly scaled optical coherence tomography angiography images in peer-reviewed studies: a systematic review  [published online November 27, 2019].  JAMA Ophthalmol. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4821Google Scholar