Correction

RESPECT-ED: Rates of Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and sub-segmental PE with modern computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms in emergency departments: A multi-center observational study finds significant yield variation, uncorrelated with use or small PE rates (PLoS ONE (2016) 11:12 (e0166483) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483)

David Mountain, Gerben Keijzers, Kevin Chu, Anthony Joseph, Catherine Read, Gabriel Blecher, Jeremy S Furyk, Chrianna Bharat, Karthik Velusamy, Andrew W Munro, Kylie Baker, Frances Kinnear, Ahses Mukherjee, Gina Watkins, Paul Buntine, Georgia Livesay, Daniel Fatovich

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Although there are multiple corrections to both formatting and some content in Tables and Figures, and some minor changes to reported results and analysis, none of these corrections alter any major findings, discussions or conclusions from the initial study. There are a number of errors in Table 2. Row M should appear after Row L. The values in the column “Adult ED patients during study” are incorrect. “ED Admits during study (%)*” values are incorrect in rows B, C, E, F, and L. “CTPA (n) per site” values are incorrect in rows C, E, H, K, L, M, and N. The “CTPA/ 1000 ED admits” and “CTPA +ve for PA /1000 adults$” values in row L are incorrect. Please see the corrected Table 2 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. There are multiple errors in Table 3. The “Large PE n as (%) +ve CTPA” values are incorrectly duplicated for the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” values in rows D, E, F, G, H, and N. The “Totals (95%CI)” value in the column “SSPE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” is incorrectly duplicated in the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” column. “Totals (95%CI)” in column “Yield % +ve PE” is incorrect. There are minor discrepancies throughout the table in comparison to the source data. Please see the corrected Table 3 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. Fig 3 contains two data point errors. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here. There are a number of errors throughout the article. In the Abstract, the first sentence of the Results section should read: Fourteen radiology departments (15 ED) provided 7075 CTPA data (94% ≥64-slice CT); PE were reported in 1033 (yield 14.6% (95%CI 13.8–15.4%; range 9.3–25.3%; site variation p <0.0001) with four sites significantly below and one above the 15.3% target. The first two sentences of the “Site demographics /characteristics” section of the Results should read: Fourteen reporting sites (but 15 EDs, as two ED had centralised reporting as a single unit) provided consecutive data for 7075 ED ordered CTPAs. Numbers ranged from 324 to 1056 CTPA per site, over 8 months to 2 year periods (from 01/2012 to 02/2015), with the exception of site F which provided consecutive data from twelve years of CTPA use (from 2002), due to lower usage rates in a smaller adult ED population. The second paragraph of the same section should read: Of the 7062 CTPA with complete demographic data, 3870 were performed in females (54.8% vs 45.2% males), p<0.001 for difference of 9.6% (CI 7.95–11.25%)) and the mean age was 60.0 years (CI 59.6–60.4, SD 16.6). Yield was significantly lower amongst females (12.1%; CI 11.3–12.9%) than males (17.6%; CI 16.7–18.5%); p < 0.0001 for difference in proportions. The mean age of those with a positive scan was 61.5 (SD = 15.6) vs. 59.7 (SD = 16.7) years for negative scans (p <0.001 for difference). The paragraph of the “SSPE/ small PE.” section of the Results should read: Table 3 and Fig 1. SSPE (isolated or multiple) were 8.8% (CI 7.1–10.5%) of all diagnosed PE with prevalence ranging from 2.0 to 15.9% of diagnosed PE, with only three marginally significant differences on pairwise comparisons. Variation in small PE prevalence ranged from 10.8 vs 21.1% and no comparisons were significantly different. Variation in the rates of diagnosed SSPE as a proportion of all CTPA’s performed ranged from 0.2–2.5% between sites, and small PE from 1.0% to 3.4%. Some differences were marginally significant but consistent with expected statistical variation when performing multiple comparisons. The last sentence in the “Other potentially important correlations/ associations” section of the Results should read: There was however a positive linear correlation (r = 0.822, p = <0.001) between rates of CTPA usage and rates of PE diagnosed per 1000 adult attendances. The first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Key findings” section of the Discussion should read: The overall proportion of SSPE was 8.8%, ranging from 2.0–15.9% of all PE diagnosed, but the more inclusive small PE grouping found no significant variation (10.2–21.1%). The fourth sentence of the “Comparison of key findings with previous literature” section of the Discussion should read: Our study found yields occasionally dropped just below 10% (2/14 sites), but 50% of sites had yields below the suggested UK target of 15.3%, with an overall population yield of 14.6% (upper CI:15.4%).

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0184219
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume12
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Cite this

Mountain, David ; Keijzers, Gerben ; Chu, Kevin ; Joseph, Anthony ; Read, Catherine ; Blecher, Gabriel ; Furyk, Jeremy S ; Bharat, Chrianna ; Velusamy, Karthik ; Munro, Andrew W ; Baker, Kylie ; Kinnear, Frances ; Mukherjee, Ahses ; Watkins, Gina ; Buntine, Paul ; Livesay, Georgia ; Fatovich, Daniel. / Correction : RESPECT-ED: Rates of Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and sub-segmental PE with modern computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms in emergency departments: A multi-center observational study finds significant yield variation, uncorrelated with use or small PE rates (PLoS ONE (2016) 11:12 (e0166483) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483). In: PLoS ONE. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 8.
@article{fb10bc290b4e475fbd9d8358bdf0e8ce,
title = "Correction: RESPECT-ED: Rates of Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and sub-segmental PE with modern computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms in emergency departments: A multi-center observational study finds significant yield variation, uncorrelated with use or small PE rates (PLoS ONE (2016) 11:12 (e0166483) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483)",
abstract = "Although there are multiple corrections to both formatting and some content in Tables and Figures, and some minor changes to reported results and analysis, none of these corrections alter any major findings, discussions or conclusions from the initial study. There are a number of errors in Table 2. Row M should appear after Row L. The values in the column “Adult ED patients during study” are incorrect. “ED Admits during study ({\%})*” values are incorrect in rows B, C, E, F, and L. “CTPA (n) per site” values are incorrect in rows C, E, H, K, L, M, and N. The “CTPA/ 1000 ED admits” and “CTPA +ve for PA /1000 adults$” values in row L are incorrect. Please see the corrected Table 2 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. There are multiple errors in Table 3. The “Large PE n as ({\%}) +ve CTPA” values are incorrectly duplicated for the “Small PE n as ({\%}) of +ve CTPA” values in rows D, E, F, G, H, and N. The “Totals (95{\%}CI)” value in the column “SSPE n as ({\%}) of +ve CTPA” is incorrectly duplicated in the “Small PE n as ({\%}) of +ve CTPA” column. “Totals (95{\%}CI)” in column “Yield {\%} +ve PE” is incorrect. There are minor discrepancies throughout the table in comparison to the source data. Please see the corrected Table 3 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. Fig 3 contains two data point errors. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here. There are a number of errors throughout the article. In the Abstract, the first sentence of the Results section should read: Fourteen radiology departments (15 ED) provided 7075 CTPA data (94{\%} ≥64-slice CT); PE were reported in 1033 (yield 14.6{\%} (95{\%}CI 13.8–15.4{\%}; range 9.3–25.3{\%}; site variation p <0.0001) with four sites significantly below and one above the 15.3{\%} target. The first two sentences of the “Site demographics /characteristics” section of the Results should read: Fourteen reporting sites (but 15 EDs, as two ED had centralised reporting as a single unit) provided consecutive data for 7075 ED ordered CTPAs. Numbers ranged from 324 to 1056 CTPA per site, over 8 months to 2 year periods (from 01/2012 to 02/2015), with the exception of site F which provided consecutive data from twelve years of CTPA use (from 2002), due to lower usage rates in a smaller adult ED population. The second paragraph of the same section should read: Of the 7062 CTPA with complete demographic data, 3870 were performed in females (54.8{\%} vs 45.2{\%} males), p<0.001 for difference of 9.6{\%} (CI 7.95–11.25{\%})) and the mean age was 60.0 years (CI 59.6–60.4, SD 16.6). Yield was significantly lower amongst females (12.1{\%}; CI 11.3–12.9{\%}) than males (17.6{\%}; CI 16.7–18.5{\%}); p < 0.0001 for difference in proportions. The mean age of those with a positive scan was 61.5 (SD = 15.6) vs. 59.7 (SD = 16.7) years for negative scans (p <0.001 for difference). The paragraph of the “SSPE/ small PE.” section of the Results should read: Table 3 and Fig 1. SSPE (isolated or multiple) were 8.8{\%} (CI 7.1–10.5{\%}) of all diagnosed PE with prevalence ranging from 2.0 to 15.9{\%} of diagnosed PE, with only three marginally significant differences on pairwise comparisons. Variation in small PE prevalence ranged from 10.8 vs 21.1{\%} and no comparisons were significantly different. Variation in the rates of diagnosed SSPE as a proportion of all CTPA’s performed ranged from 0.2–2.5{\%} between sites, and small PE from 1.0{\%} to 3.4{\%}. Some differences were marginally significant but consistent with expected statistical variation when performing multiple comparisons. The last sentence in the “Other potentially important correlations/ associations” section of the Results should read: There was however a positive linear correlation (r = 0.822, p = <0.001) between rates of CTPA usage and rates of PE diagnosed per 1000 adult attendances. The first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Key findings” section of the Discussion should read: The overall proportion of SSPE was 8.8{\%}, ranging from 2.0–15.9{\%} of all PE diagnosed, but the more inclusive small PE grouping found no significant variation (10.2–21.1{\%}). The fourth sentence of the “Comparison of key findings with previous literature” section of the Discussion should read: Our study found yields occasionally dropped just below 10{\%} (2/14 sites), but 50{\%} of sites had yields below the suggested UK target of 15.3{\%}, with an overall population yield of 14.6{\%} (upper CI:15.4{\%}).",
author = "David Mountain and Gerben Keijzers and Kevin Chu and Anthony Joseph and Catherine Read and Gabriel Blecher and Furyk, {Jeremy S} and Chrianna Bharat and Karthik Velusamy and Munro, {Andrew W} and Kylie Baker and Frances Kinnear and Ahses Mukherjee and Gina Watkins and Paul Buntine and Georgia Livesay and Daniel Fatovich",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0184219",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

Correction : RESPECT-ED: Rates of Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and sub-segmental PE with modern computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms in emergency departments: A multi-center observational study finds significant yield variation, uncorrelated with use or small PE rates (PLoS ONE (2016) 11:12 (e0166483) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483). / Mountain, David; Keijzers, Gerben; Chu, Kevin; Joseph, Anthony; Read, Catherine; Blecher, Gabriel; Furyk, Jeremy S; Bharat, Chrianna; Velusamy, Karthik; Munro, Andrew W; Baker, Kylie; Kinnear, Frances; Mukherjee, Ahses; Watkins, Gina; Buntine, Paul; Livesay, Georgia; Fatovich, Daniel.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 8, e0184219, 01.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction

T2 - RESPECT-ED: Rates of Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and sub-segmental PE with modern computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms in emergency departments: A multi-center observational study finds significant yield variation, uncorrelated with use or small PE rates (PLoS ONE (2016) 11:12 (e0166483) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483)

AU - Mountain, David

AU - Keijzers, Gerben

AU - Chu, Kevin

AU - Joseph, Anthony

AU - Read, Catherine

AU - Blecher, Gabriel

AU - Furyk, Jeremy S

AU - Bharat, Chrianna

AU - Velusamy, Karthik

AU - Munro, Andrew W

AU - Baker, Kylie

AU - Kinnear, Frances

AU - Mukherjee, Ahses

AU - Watkins, Gina

AU - Buntine, Paul

AU - Livesay, Georgia

AU - Fatovich, Daniel

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Although there are multiple corrections to both formatting and some content in Tables and Figures, and some minor changes to reported results and analysis, none of these corrections alter any major findings, discussions or conclusions from the initial study. There are a number of errors in Table 2. Row M should appear after Row L. The values in the column “Adult ED patients during study” are incorrect. “ED Admits during study (%)*” values are incorrect in rows B, C, E, F, and L. “CTPA (n) per site” values are incorrect in rows C, E, H, K, L, M, and N. The “CTPA/ 1000 ED admits” and “CTPA +ve for PA /1000 adults$” values in row L are incorrect. Please see the corrected Table 2 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. There are multiple errors in Table 3. The “Large PE n as (%) +ve CTPA” values are incorrectly duplicated for the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” values in rows D, E, F, G, H, and N. The “Totals (95%CI)” value in the column “SSPE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” is incorrectly duplicated in the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” column. “Totals (95%CI)” in column “Yield % +ve PE” is incorrect. There are minor discrepancies throughout the table in comparison to the source data. Please see the corrected Table 3 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. Fig 3 contains two data point errors. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here. There are a number of errors throughout the article. In the Abstract, the first sentence of the Results section should read: Fourteen radiology departments (15 ED) provided 7075 CTPA data (94% ≥64-slice CT); PE were reported in 1033 (yield 14.6% (95%CI 13.8–15.4%; range 9.3–25.3%; site variation p <0.0001) with four sites significantly below and one above the 15.3% target. The first two sentences of the “Site demographics /characteristics” section of the Results should read: Fourteen reporting sites (but 15 EDs, as two ED had centralised reporting as a single unit) provided consecutive data for 7075 ED ordered CTPAs. Numbers ranged from 324 to 1056 CTPA per site, over 8 months to 2 year periods (from 01/2012 to 02/2015), with the exception of site F which provided consecutive data from twelve years of CTPA use (from 2002), due to lower usage rates in a smaller adult ED population. The second paragraph of the same section should read: Of the 7062 CTPA with complete demographic data, 3870 were performed in females (54.8% vs 45.2% males), p<0.001 for difference of 9.6% (CI 7.95–11.25%)) and the mean age was 60.0 years (CI 59.6–60.4, SD 16.6). Yield was significantly lower amongst females (12.1%; CI 11.3–12.9%) than males (17.6%; CI 16.7–18.5%); p < 0.0001 for difference in proportions. The mean age of those with a positive scan was 61.5 (SD = 15.6) vs. 59.7 (SD = 16.7) years for negative scans (p <0.001 for difference). The paragraph of the “SSPE/ small PE.” section of the Results should read: Table 3 and Fig 1. SSPE (isolated or multiple) were 8.8% (CI 7.1–10.5%) of all diagnosed PE with prevalence ranging from 2.0 to 15.9% of diagnosed PE, with only three marginally significant differences on pairwise comparisons. Variation in small PE prevalence ranged from 10.8 vs 21.1% and no comparisons were significantly different. Variation in the rates of diagnosed SSPE as a proportion of all CTPA’s performed ranged from 0.2–2.5% between sites, and small PE from 1.0% to 3.4%. Some differences were marginally significant but consistent with expected statistical variation when performing multiple comparisons. The last sentence in the “Other potentially important correlations/ associations” section of the Results should read: There was however a positive linear correlation (r = 0.822, p = <0.001) between rates of CTPA usage and rates of PE diagnosed per 1000 adult attendances. The first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Key findings” section of the Discussion should read: The overall proportion of SSPE was 8.8%, ranging from 2.0–15.9% of all PE diagnosed, but the more inclusive small PE grouping found no significant variation (10.2–21.1%). The fourth sentence of the “Comparison of key findings with previous literature” section of the Discussion should read: Our study found yields occasionally dropped just below 10% (2/14 sites), but 50% of sites had yields below the suggested UK target of 15.3%, with an overall population yield of 14.6% (upper CI:15.4%).

AB - Although there are multiple corrections to both formatting and some content in Tables and Figures, and some minor changes to reported results and analysis, none of these corrections alter any major findings, discussions or conclusions from the initial study. There are a number of errors in Table 2. Row M should appear after Row L. The values in the column “Adult ED patients during study” are incorrect. “ED Admits during study (%)*” values are incorrect in rows B, C, E, F, and L. “CTPA (n) per site” values are incorrect in rows C, E, H, K, L, M, and N. The “CTPA/ 1000 ED admits” and “CTPA +ve for PA /1000 adults$” values in row L are incorrect. Please see the corrected Table 2 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. There are multiple errors in Table 3. The “Large PE n as (%) +ve CTPA” values are incorrectly duplicated for the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” values in rows D, E, F, G, H, and N. The “Totals (95%CI)” value in the column “SSPE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” is incorrectly duplicated in the “Small PE n as (%) of +ve CTPA” column. “Totals (95%CI)” in column “Yield % +ve PE” is incorrect. There are minor discrepancies throughout the table in comparison to the source data. Please see the corrected Table 3 below. Totals and means have been recalculated, as necessary. Fig 3 contains two data point errors. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here. There are a number of errors throughout the article. In the Abstract, the first sentence of the Results section should read: Fourteen radiology departments (15 ED) provided 7075 CTPA data (94% ≥64-slice CT); PE were reported in 1033 (yield 14.6% (95%CI 13.8–15.4%; range 9.3–25.3%; site variation p <0.0001) with four sites significantly below and one above the 15.3% target. The first two sentences of the “Site demographics /characteristics” section of the Results should read: Fourteen reporting sites (but 15 EDs, as two ED had centralised reporting as a single unit) provided consecutive data for 7075 ED ordered CTPAs. Numbers ranged from 324 to 1056 CTPA per site, over 8 months to 2 year periods (from 01/2012 to 02/2015), with the exception of site F which provided consecutive data from twelve years of CTPA use (from 2002), due to lower usage rates in a smaller adult ED population. The second paragraph of the same section should read: Of the 7062 CTPA with complete demographic data, 3870 were performed in females (54.8% vs 45.2% males), p<0.001 for difference of 9.6% (CI 7.95–11.25%)) and the mean age was 60.0 years (CI 59.6–60.4, SD 16.6). Yield was significantly lower amongst females (12.1%; CI 11.3–12.9%) than males (17.6%; CI 16.7–18.5%); p < 0.0001 for difference in proportions. The mean age of those with a positive scan was 61.5 (SD = 15.6) vs. 59.7 (SD = 16.7) years for negative scans (p <0.001 for difference). The paragraph of the “SSPE/ small PE.” section of the Results should read: Table 3 and Fig 1. SSPE (isolated or multiple) were 8.8% (CI 7.1–10.5%) of all diagnosed PE with prevalence ranging from 2.0 to 15.9% of diagnosed PE, with only three marginally significant differences on pairwise comparisons. Variation in small PE prevalence ranged from 10.8 vs 21.1% and no comparisons were significantly different. Variation in the rates of diagnosed SSPE as a proportion of all CTPA’s performed ranged from 0.2–2.5% between sites, and small PE from 1.0% to 3.4%. Some differences were marginally significant but consistent with expected statistical variation when performing multiple comparisons. The last sentence in the “Other potentially important correlations/ associations” section of the Results should read: There was however a positive linear correlation (r = 0.822, p = <0.001) between rates of CTPA usage and rates of PE diagnosed per 1000 adult attendances. The first sentence of the second paragraph in the “Key findings” section of the Discussion should read: The overall proportion of SSPE was 8.8%, ranging from 2.0–15.9% of all PE diagnosed, but the more inclusive small PE grouping found no significant variation (10.2–21.1%). The fourth sentence of the “Comparison of key findings with previous literature” section of the Discussion should read: Our study found yields occasionally dropped just below 10% (2/14 sites), but 50% of sites had yields below the suggested UK target of 15.3%, with an overall population yield of 14.6% (upper CI:15.4%).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029146328&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0184219

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0184219

M3 - Comment / Debate

VL - 12

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 8

M1 - e0184219

ER -