Skip to main content

Advertisement

You are viewing the new article page. Let us know what you think. Return to old version

Erratum | Open | Published:

Erratum to: Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness

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."

References

  1. 1.

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

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Miet Schetz.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article