- Erratum
- Published:
Erratum to: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness
Critical Care volume 17, Article number: 413 (2013)
Correction
After publication of their article [1], the authors noticed two errors in their viewpoint.
On page 4 under the subheading "Recent randomized controlled trials", the text currently reads "However, both ICU and hospital stays were shorter in the tight-calorie group, clearly introducing the statistical problem of informative censoring/competing risk that we discussed earlier." The ICU and hospital stays are in fact longer in the tight-calorie group, and this statement should therefore read "However, both ICU and hospital stays were longer in the tight-calorie group, clearly introducing the statistical problem of informative censoring/competing risk that we discussed earlier."
On page 5 also under the subheading "Recent randomized controlled trials", the text currently reads "The EN amount did not differ between groups and reached ±50% of target at day 7." In fact, the EN amount reached ±20% of target at day 7, and this statement should therefore read "The EN amount did not differ between groups and reached ±20% of target at day 7."
References
Schetz M, Casaer MP, Van den Berghe: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness?. Critical Care. 2013, 17: 302-10.1186/cc11828.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1186/cc11828
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schetz, M., Casaer, M.P. & Van den Berghe, G. Erratum to: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness. Crit Care 17, 413 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12509
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12509