Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Correction: Nebulised surfactant to reduce severity of respiratory distress: a blinded, parallel, randomised controlled trial

Statistics from Altmetric.com

The authors of this paper (Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019;104:F313–19) were alerted by a reader of the journal to errors in the reporting of their primary outcome for this trial. The errors in the manuscript are as follows:

1. The flow chart (figure 1, pF315, incorrectly reports the outcomes of the 290–316w GA subgroup randomised to CPAP and nebulised surfactant as 8 requiring only CPAP and 13 requiring intubation. The correct numbers are 9 requiring only CPAP and 12 requiring intubation. Please note that the number requiring intubation in that subgroup is reported correctly in the main text for this group.

Figure 1

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram for study recruitment and treatment assignment. CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; FiO2, fractional inspired oxygen; GA, gestational age.

2. The abstract and the text (page F315) incorrectly report that 11/32 infants in the intervention group required intubation in the first 72 hours (primary endpoint), when the correct number is 13/32 infants resulting in a RR (95 % CI) of 0.567 (0.342, 0.940). The error does not change the conclusion of the study.

3. Absolute numbers reported in the text for the gestational age strata are correct for the dichotomous primary outcome of requirement for intubation in the first 72 hours. However, the reported relative risks are incorrect, due to erroneous arrangement of the 2 x 2 table used in statistical analysis. The authors have detailed the correct primary dichotomous outcomes for both the full cohort and each of the gestational age groups in the table below.

Table 1

The correct primary dichotomous outcomes for both the full cohort and each of the gestational age groups

All other data and figures reported are correct, including figure 2, which has the correct number of infants in each group for both the total and the stratified survival curves. The authors confirm that they used an intention to treat analysis as described in the statistical section.

The revised statistical data do not change the outcome of the study as the intervention remains significant. All original case report forms are available for audit and review.

View Abstract

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles