Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:45:40.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Columns
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 211 , Issue 2 , August 2017 , pp. 120
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2017 

Comparison of diagnostic performance of Two-Question Screen and 15 depression screening instruments for older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJPsych, 210, . The following errors were noticed post-publication:

(p. 255, Abstract, Results): A total of 46,506 [not 46,651] participants from 132 [not 133] studies were identified […] The majority of studies (63/132) [not 64/133] used various versions […]

(p. 257, line 3 of Study characteristics): A total of 46,506 [not 40,506] participants […]

(p. 259, line 1 of Discussion, Main findings): This meta-analysis included 132 [not 133] studies with 143 [not 144] cohorts […]

(p. 259, line 2 of Discussion, Strengths and limitations): […] included 132 [not 133] studies with 46,506 [not 46,651] patients […]

Corresponding changes were made to the data supplement, reflecting the fact that one study from Denmark using the GDS-30, GDS-15, GDS-10 and CSDD was not included in the meta-analysis. Further details are available from the author on request.

The online version of this paper was corrected, in deviation from print and in accordance with this correction, on 22 June 2017.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.