Open Access

Erratum to: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness

  • Miet Schetz1Email author,
  • Michael Paul Casaer1 and
  • Greet Van den Berghe1
Critical Care201317:413

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12509

Published: 18 February 2013

The original article was published in Critical Care 2013 17:302

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."

Notes

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven

References

  1. Schetz M, Casaer MP, Van den Berghe: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness?. Critical Care. 2013, 17: 302-10.1186/cc11828.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2013

Advertisement