Correcting the medical literature: “To err is human, to correct divine”. Risk of infection associated with administration of intravenous iron: a systematic review and meta-analysis. We regret these errors and any confusion caused to the readers or editors of the journal.ġ. We have provided corrections to the secondary outcome scores in the Abstract, and Study Characteristics and Primary Outcome paragraphs of the Results section of the main article, Table 2, and Figure 3 and have requested that the article be corrected online. The original interpretations and conclusions stand as initially published. We have reviewed the article, data, and analyses to see if there were any other errors and are confident that there are no additional errors. The overall number of participants has changed very slightly from 32 920 participants to 32 762 participants, and the number of participants providing data for the primary outcome of infection has changed from 19 480 participants to 19 322 participants. Once corrected, the overall point estimate for the risk of infection has changed very slightly from a Relative Risk (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13, I2 = 37%) to 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03-1.29, I2 = 36%). The number of participants and the number of infection events in each group were incorrectly recorded. Following publication, an error was noted in the data extraction for one study. The article reports our systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations. The overall impact of the error is considered minor and once corrected the overall conclusions of the study remain unchanged. We believe that this represents an inadvertent or “pervasive” type of error, and we provide details in this letter of explanation. On behalf of our coauthors, we write to report an error that occurred in our article, “Risk of Infection Associated with Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, that was published online on November 12, 2021. Shared Decision Making and Communication.Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine.Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment.Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience.Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography.Secondary Outcomes-Mortality and Length of Stay Forest Plots Secondary Outcomes-Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusion RequirementsĮFigure 8. Secondary Outcome-Hemoglobin Forest PlotĮFigure 7. Subgroup Analysis by Type of Preparation, Dosing Schedule and Iron Profile at Enrollment on the Risk of InfectionĮFigure 6. Subgroup Analysis by Clinical SettingĮFigure 5. Sensitivity Analysis for Primary OutcomeĮFigure 4. Funnel Plot for Primary OutcomeĮFigure 3. Summary of Reporting of Infection in Included StudiesĮFigure 2. Risk of Bias Assessments for Individual RCTsĮTable 7. Summary of Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized StudiesĮTable 5. Characteristics of Included RCTsĮTable 2. GRADE Assessment for Primary OutcomeĮTable 1. Descriptive Summary of Findings of Included Nonrandomized Studies (NRS)ĮAppendix 3.

Liquid iron danger