- Email: [email protected]
October 2013 (vol. 209, no. 4, page 323.e4 online, 324 in print)
ajog.org
CORRECTION October 2013 (vol. 209, no. 4, page 323.e4 online, 324 in print) Gru¨nebaum A, McCullough LB, Sapra KJ, et al. Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:323.e1-6. Decimal points for 2 data points were incorrect in Table 2, “5-minute Apgar scores ¼ 0 by birth setting, birth attendant, and parity” (page 323.e4). Both errors appear in the second section of the first column, “5-minute Apgar 0 (P ¼ 0),” and occur in the second column, “n/Total (per 1000).” In the second row, “Hospital midwife,” the number per 1000 for 37/440,642 cases should have been 0.08, not 0.84. In the third row, “Freestanding BC [birth center] midwife,” the number per 1000 for 11/15,226 cases should have been 0.72, not 7.22. The authors state that because the relative risks are correct as published, these changes do not alter the conclusions as presented. This article appeared in abbreviated form on pages 323-5 of the October 2013 print edition. As the only table in the article summary, Table 2 was labeled “Table.”
MONTH 2016 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
1
CORRECTION October 2013 (vol. 209, no. 4, page 323.e4 online, 324 in print) Gru¨nebaum A, McCullough LB, Sapra KJ, et al. Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:323.e1-6. Decimal points for 2 data points were incorrect in Table 2, “5-minute Apgar scores ¼ 0 by birth setting, birth attendant, and parity” (page 323.e4). Both errors appear in the second section of the first column, “5-minute Apgar 0 (P ¼ 0),” and occur in the second column, “n/Total (per 1000).” In the second row, “Hospital midwife,” the number per 1000 for 37/440,642 cases should have been 0.08, not 0.84. In the third row, “Freestanding BC [birth center] midwife,” the number per 1000 for 11/15,226 cases should have been 0.72, not 7.22. The authors state that because the relative risks are correct as published, these changes do not alter the conclusions as presented. This article appeared in abbreviated form on pages 323-5 of the October 2013 print edition. As the only table in the article summary, Table 2 was labeled “Table.”
MONTH 2016 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
1