Skip Navigation

Erratum for Pildal et al., Int. J. Epidemiol. 36 (4) 847-857.
International Journal of Epidemiology 2008 37(2):422; doi:10.1093/ije/dyn046
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pildal, J
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pildal, J
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P C
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2008; all rights reserved.

Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials

J Pildal, A Hróbjartsson, K J Jørgensen, J Hilden, D G Altman and P C Gøtzsche

Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:847–57

In issue 36(4) an incorrect version of Figure 4 was displayed as part of Figure 5, while the correct version of Figure 4 was shown at the bottom of page 852. The publisher apologises for this error, and prints the two affected figures again below:


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 4 Meta-analysis of how the present study adds to the other published studies of the impact of allocation concealment on treatment effect estimates. RORs below 1 indicate that trials without adequate concealment show a more beneficial treatment effect. RORs were combined in a random effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis

 

Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 5 Meta-analysis of how the present study adds to the other published studies of the impact of double-blinding on treatment effect estimates. RORs below 1 indicate that trials without double blinding show a more beneficial treatment effect. RORs were combined in a random effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis. Only one study7 besides our own made the number of meta-analyses and trials that contributed to the estimates available

 

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



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pildal, J
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pildal, J
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P C
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?