Skip Navigation

Erratum for Davies et al., Br. J. Anaesth. 96 (4) 418-426.
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007 99(5):768; doi:10.1093/bja/aem310
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Erratum

A comparison of the analgesic efficacy and side-effects of paravertebral vs epidural blockade for thoracotomy—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (BJA 2006; 96: 418–26)

It has come to the authors' attention that there were several errors in their article:

The first column in Table 1 (study authors) is incorrect and was in the wrong order with incorrect reference numbers in the published version. All the remaining information for each row was correct. The corrected table is shown below.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1 Characteristics of the randomized trials included in the meta-analysis. *Each study is rated according to its quality of bias-minimization using the Jadad scale,17 0 (high bias) to 5 (low bias). PCA, patient controlled analgesia; PO, per oral; SC, subcutaneous; PR, per rectal

 
The reference to Kaiser et al. in Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 should be followed by the reference number 18 (i.e. Kaiser et al.18).

The sentence in column 2, page 419 should read ‘Where visual analogue pain scores were not measured on a 0–10 scale (0–4 in reference 18, 0–50 cm in reference 35), the numbers were converted to a 10 cm scale.’

After the word ‘contraindications’ on page 423, column 2, the reference numbers should read ‘contraindications.19 35

The Editor and authors apologize for these errors.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?