Call me cynical but I wonder whether perhaps they posted a correction note because it allowed them claim better results. I quite often point out errors to authors but only rarely are corrections published.An authors' correction note has been published.
It doesn't change anything substantial or the conclusions....
Just a few details...
Authors' Correction Note:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870018/
PDF:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870018/pdf/hct122.pdf
Below, I'll post the original text, in relation to correction no. 2, and what they now say it should have read, as I understand it:
The original text was as follows:
"About 74% (620 of 834) of patients had a decreased Chalder Fatigue score at follow-up and 64% (534 of 834) had improved by >2 points (our definition of a clinically useful improvement). In contrast, only 50% (416 of 834) of patients had an increased SF-36 physical function score at follow-up and only 16% (131 of 834) had improved by >22 points. In total, 14% (120 of 834) had clinically useful improvements on both scales."
And I think it should have read as follows:
"About 74% (620 of 834) of patients had a decreased Chalder Fatigue score at follow-up and 64% (534 of 834) had improved by >2 points (our definition of a clinically useful improvement). In contrast, only 50% (416 of 834) of patients had an increased SF-36 physical function score at follow-up and only 29% (### of 834) had improved by >11 points. In total, 25% (### of 834) had clinically useful improvements on both scales."
Last edited: