In the article “Pediatric Radiopharmaceutical Administered Doses: 2010 North American Consensus Guidelines” by Gelfand et al. (J Nucl Med. 2011;52:318–322), Webster’s formula in Table 2 should read as follows: (Age (y) + 1) × (adult dose)/(age (y) + 7). The authors regret the error.
In the article “68Ga-DOTATOC Imaging of Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis” by Graham et al. (J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1452–1458), two values of n were incorrect in the paragraph providing sensitivity and specificity results. The corrected paragraph appears below. The authors regret the error.
Sensitivity and Specificity (Metaanalysis)
The findings of the metaanalysis on the first 7 papers (8–14), which reported true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative results (n = 300), show an overall sensitivity and specificity of 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%–96%) and 82% (95% CI, 69%–90%), respectively (Fig. 2). The diagnostic odds ratio for these papers was 61 (Fig. 3). When we included the 5 papers (15–19) that reported only true-positive and false-negative results (n = 132), the metaanalysis resulted in an overall sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 87%–96%) (Table 2).
- © 2017 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
