TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–1293 (GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011) 64(12) (1283–1293), (S089543561100206X), (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012))
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Oxman, Andrew D.
AU - Kunz, Regina
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Rind, David
AU - Devereaux, P. J.
AU - Montori, Victor M.
AU - Freyschuss, Bo
AU - Vist, Gunn
AU - Jaeschke, Roman
AU - Williams, John W.
AU - Murad, Mohammad Hassan
AU - Sinclair, David
AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve
AU - Meerpohlm, Joerg
AU - Whittington, Craig
AU - Thorlund, Kristian
AU - Andrews, Jeff
AU - Schünemanna, Holger J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2011 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - The authors regret, in the above-mentioned article, we discovered an error related to standards for adequate precision in systematic reviews of continuous variables. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “Because it may give false reassurance, we hesitate to offer a rule-of-thumb threshold for the absolute number of patients required for adequate precision for continuous variables. For example, using the usual standards of α (0.05) and β (0.20), and an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations, representing a small effect, requires a total samples size of approximately 400 (200 per group) - a sample size that may not be sufficient to ensure prognostic balance.” The sample size stated is incorrect: the correct number is 800 (400 per group). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The authors are grateful to Mark Chatfield for pointing out this error.
AB - The authors regret, in the above-mentioned article, we discovered an error related to standards for adequate precision in systematic reviews of continuous variables. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “Because it may give false reassurance, we hesitate to offer a rule-of-thumb threshold for the absolute number of patients required for adequate precision for continuous variables. For example, using the usual standards of α (0.05) and β (0.20), and an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations, representing a small effect, requires a total samples size of approximately 400 (200 per group) - a sample size that may not be sufficient to ensure prognostic balance.” The sample size stated is incorrect: the correct number is 800 (400 per group). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The authors are grateful to Mark Chatfield for pointing out this error.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108429693&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85108429693&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.014
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 34174652
AN - SCOPUS:85108429693
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 137
SP - 265
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -