[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 329
Citations 0
Correction
November 7, 2018

Errors in Statistical Test Results, Figure 2, and eFigure 3

JAMA Psychiatry. Published online November 7, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3584

In the Original Article titled “Addiction Potential of Cigarettes With Reduced Nicotine Content in Populations With Psychiatric Disorders and Other Vulnerabilities to Tobacco Addiction,”1 published October 1, 2017, there was an error in calculating the overall demand curve measure in the cigarette purchase task and test statistics corresponding to that measure. The second and third sentences in the Simulation subsection of the Results section should have read as follows: “The estimated rate of smoking decreased as a function of decreasing nicotine dose (F3,75 = 3.04; P = .002). No population differences were found except at the 2.4-mg/g dose (F2,57 = 8.80; P < .001), at which smoking rate was greater among those with opioid dependence than among smokers with affective disorders (F1,38 = 15.62; P < .001) and disadvantaged women (F1,38 = 38.97; P < .001) (eFigure 3A in the Supplement).” The plots in panel A of Figure 2 depicting the effect of nicotine dose on overall demand and panel A of eFigure 3 depicting population differences in the effect of the 2.4-mg/g nicotine dose on overall demand were incorrect. The fourth sentence of the figure caption accompanying eFigure 3 should have read as follows: “Overall demand among those with opioid dependence was significantly more inelastic (greater persistence in demand) than among disadvantaged women (F1,38 = 38.97, P < .001) or those with affective disorders (F1,38 = 15.62, P < .001).” This article was corrected online.

References
1.
Higgins  ST, Heil  SH, Sigmon  SC,  et al.  Addiction potential of cigarettes with reduced nicotine content in populations with psychiatric disorders and other vulnerabilities to tobacco addiction.  JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(10):1056-1064.Google ScholarCrossref
×