In the published article, the affiliations were incorrect. Dariusz R. Mańkowski’s affiliation was incorrectly published as affiliation 2 “Department of Applied Biology, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute—National Research Institute, Radzików, Poland”. This affiliation has been removed and Dariusz R. Mańkowski’s affiliation is now affiliation 1. The correct affiliation details appear as follows:1†, Renata Orłowska 1*†, Dariusz R. Mańkowski 1, Janusz Zimny 1, Krzysztof Kowalczyk 2, Michał Nowak 2 and Jacek Zebrowski 3Piotr T. Bednarek 1 Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute–National Research Institute, Radzików, Poland,2 Institute of Plant Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland,3 Institute of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Affiliations. Instead of “Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China”, it should be “Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China”.Due to a production error, there was an error in the The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


Dr Conforti’s correct affiliation is the Division of Melanoma, Sarcomas, and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Association of Anticancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessed in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,”


In the original article, there were errors in “affiliations 10 and 11. Instead of “Division of Cardiology, Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Bari, Italy,” it should be “UOSD Cardiologia di Interesse Oncologico - IRCCS Istituto Tumori “GIOVANNI Paolo II” Bari, Bari, Italy.”Instead of “Divisione di Cardiologia, Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio-Emilia, Italy,” it should be “Division of Cardiology, Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Azienda USL – IRCCS di Reggio-Emilia, Reggio-Emilia, Italy.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


In the original publication of the article, the affiliation of the co-author, Norikazu Masuda, should be changed from “National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan” to “Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan”.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation, 1. Instead of “Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China,” it should be “Xiamen Branch, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Incorrect Affiliation1Shandong Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jining, Shandong Province, China; 2College of Agriculture and Forestry, Linyi University, Linyi, Shandong Province, China,”, it should be “1College of Agriculture and Forestry, Linyi University, Linyi, Shandong Province, China;2Shandong Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jining, Shandong Province, China;”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation(s). Instead of “The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error in the author list, and author [Xin Liu] was erroneously included. The corrected author list appears below.1,2, Feng Miao2*,Yongbin Wang2, Jingxuan Kou2, Kun Yang3, Wei Li3, Chunrong Xiong3, Fengjian Zhang3, Xinyao Wang3, Haoyun Yan4, Changyin Wei5, Changlei Zhao2 and Ge Yan2Correct author list: Gongzhen LiuThe authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.In the published article, there was an error in Author Contribution. There was a spelling mistake in Author Contribution section, “designe” need to be revised as “designed”.A correction has been made to Author Contributions. This sentence previously stated:“GL and FM designe, drafted and participated the revision of the manuscript.”The corrected sentence appears below: “GL and FM designed, drafted and participated the revision of the manuscript.”


In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation for author Dongwon Yun. As well as having affiliation “1 William F. Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, United States,” they should also have affiliation, “2 School of Business, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there were errors in the following affiliations.Instead of “[1] Department of Oral Medicine, Basic Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”, it should be “Department of Oral Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”.Instead of “[3] Department of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Basic Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”, it should be “Department of Physiology and Pathophysiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”.Instead of “[4] Clinical Medicine of “5+3” Program, Basic Medical College, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”, it should be “Clinical Medicine of “5+3” Program, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In this article, the affiliation details for the author “Fardous Hosseiny” were incorrectly given as “Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia” but should have been “Canadian Centre of Excellence on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Related Mental Health Conditions, Ottawa, Canada”. This has been corrected with this erratum.


Food waste has increased significantly and become a global issue amidst a growing concern regarding famine in several countries. Food sharing constitutes the solution to the problem provided an appropriate framework is developed that guides its application. The sharing economy was touted as the appropriate framework, yet it is excessively macroscopic to be able to capture the dynamics of food sharing activities. A microscopic framework is required to overcome this problem, the concept of collaborative consumption with its focus on activity level being one potential solution. However, an investigation into how food sharing activities can be viewed as collaborative consumption should be completed. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between food sharing activities and collaborative consumption. The authors employed a systematic literature review conducted by meta-analysis and content analysis to identify the commonalities between the two and the theories underlying them. The result is a conceptual framework of food sharing activities as a collaborative consumption practice. The framework highlights eight propositions that can explain the intention, performance, and continuity of food sharing activities. At the end of the paper, the authors outline the theoretical and managerial contributions and recommend future research activities. Changes in food consumption patterns have increased the amount of food waste, which is the amount of edible food discarded for various reasons at successive stages of the food supply chain, such as excessive quantity and poor quality . Food waFood waste negatively affects the environment, society, and the economy ,5,6. TheFood sharing, an initiative to reduce food waste by redistributing surpluses ,10, reprPrevious food sharing studies have mainly employed the sharing economy as a fundamental sharing model ,14,15. HThe concept of collaborative consumption is suitable for this purpose since it can specify the consumption pattern and context at a microscopic level in terms of both organizations and individuals ,21,22,23Exploring food sharing from a collaborative consumption perspective is crucial. The micro perspective of collaborative consumption is appropriate to enhancing the effectiveness of food sharing as a means of reducing food waste because it can facilitate profound insights into food sharing activities, in particular the purpose, performance, and continuity of the activities ,29. FromBased on the elaboration in the previous paragraph, there are two objectives of this study. First, to recognize the characteristics of food sharing that are appropriate to the collaborative consumption context. Second, to develop a conceptual framework of food sharing from a collaborative consumption perspective. The structure of the study consists of four sections. The first introduces sharing as a new paradigm to reduce food waste, prompting the present research into food sharing within a collaborative context. The second addresses the research objectives by employing two methods: a systematic literature review and content analysis. The third section presents and discusses the results. The final section contains the conclusion and recommendations for further research.Food sharing represents an embryonic issue and a minor topic that requires the developing of a solid understanding of previous studies through a literature review. In reducing food waste, many studies on food sharing are dominated by macro-level studies such as socio-ecological, geographic, economic, and cultural ,36,37,38This research is comprised of two stages in order to develop a conceptual framework of food sharing from the collaborative consumption perspective. Firstly, the study compares food sharing and collaborative consumption as a means of investigating the characteristics of and the relationship between both concepts using a meta-analysis. Secondly, the content analysis explores the first stage results as the fundamental inputs for conceptual framework development.This study employs a systematic literature review in order to promote an understanding of food sharing within a collaborative consumption context. The review, conducted by both metaanalysis  and content analysis, develops a conceptual framework. A systematic literature review analyzes the transparency, methodology, and reproducibility of previous empirical research . The tra1Data CollectionThe study employed raw data from the Scopus database which, as the largest, most comprehensive, and robust database for citation, is the one preferred by the majority of scholars ,41,42 Th2Data SelectionThe study identified and removed irrelevant articles leading to the extracting of appropriate data from 41 articles on food sharing, and 13 covering collaborative consumption. The final data extraction consisted of 255 articles on food sharing and 100 articles concerning collaborative consumption for subsequent examination. The main “food sharing” and “collaborative consumption” data is shown in The food sharing research period is more extended than collaborative consumption in the 2000s and the 2010s. The term “collaborative consumption” was first mentioned in a Felson and Spaeth article of 1978, but the term fell out of currency and was not employed again until the 2010s, when technology developed rapidly. Sharing activities using technology increased the volume of collaborative consumption research in the early 2010s. The 255 documents related to food sharing feature 692 authors, 742 author keywords, 11,335 references, and 183 sources. In comparison, 100 collaborative consumption documents contained 256 authors, 335 author keywords, 5583 references, and 65 sources.3Data AnalysisThe study has two research objectives. First, through meta-analysis, to recognize and map food sharing characteristics appropriate to a collaborative consumption context. A meta-analysis is a statistical method of integrating results from various studies as a means of identifying and comparing the patterns, disagreements, or relationships that appear in multiple studies on the same topic . A meta-Data collection involves the gathering of information from the database source and determining the keywords related to the study, namely, food sharing and collaborative consumption. The second stage consists of the selection and extraction of the relevant data. Finally, the R studio tool and content analysis address the research objectives. The successive stages of the research are described in The keyword analysis describes the research trend, identifies the research gap and highlights future potential research . Word TrThere are fifty most prominent terms in food sharing studies. The terms are “food sharing” (19%), “food-sharing” (3%), “food waste” (7%), “sharing economy” (6%), and “sharing” (5%). Three terms have the same frequency (4%): “food”, “cooperation”, and “food security”. Food insecurity and sustainability (3%), “reciprocity”, “commensality”, and “exchange”, have the same percentage (2%). The last terms have a similar portion (1%): “reciprocal altruism”, “behavioural ecology”, “children”, “climate change”, “hunger-gatherers”, “social network analysis”, “social network”, “Canada”, “care”, “cities”, “consumption”, “Ethiopia”, “ethnography”, “evolution”, “food surplus”, “food system”, “health”, “hunger”, “indigenous”, “inequality”, “Inuit”, “motivation”, “resilience”, “360-degree video”, “activism”, “anthropology”, “Belgium, Berlin”, “coping strategies”, “costly signaling”, “COVID-19”, “cross-cultural comparison”, “cultural ecosystem services”, “culture”, “demography”, “dental caries”, and “diet”.Of the fifty terms derived from the keyword analysis of food sharing studies, two duplicating terms: (1) “food sharing” and “food-sharing”; (2) “social networks” and “social network analysis” were identified.“Sharing Economy”, “COVID-19”, and “behavioural ecology” are recent issues in food sharing studies ,49,50.“Food waste”, “food surplus”, “climate change”, “sustainability”, “consumption”, and “food system” imply behaviour to protect the environment ,8,51,52.“Reciprocity”, “reciprocal altruism”, and “exchange” are the terms considered to explain food sharing motivation and are also similar to the basic principles of social exchange theory ,49,50,53“Motivation” is a keyword frequently investigated in food sharing research to understand why individuals participate in food sharing ,52.“Sharing”, “food”, “cooperation”, and “care” reflect primary food sharing characteristics ,55,56.The five terms refer to culture-related topics, namely “cross-cultural comparison“, “cultural ecosystem services“, “indigenous“, “Inuit“, and “culture“ itself ,57,58,59“Canada”, “Ethiopia”, “Belgium”, and “Berlin” refer to the country, region and city where food sharing studies are most widely conducted. The keyword “cities” indicates where most food sharing activities are undertaken in urban areas ,61,62.“Children”, “hunger”, “inequality”, and “food insecurity” reflect the recipients in food sharing activities and indicate that food sharing studies emphasize creating food security and society’s well-being ,63,64.Food sharing studies are concerned with “health” and “diet” ,66.“Dental caries” have been excluded from the analysis because the keyword is not related to food sharing ,68.“Social network analysis”, “ethnography”, and “360-degree video” are the tools and methods commonly used in food sharing research ,64,69.“Hunter-gatherers” and “activism” are food sharing communities .“Demography” and “cost signaling” are other factors that influence food sharing research ,71.The fifty most frequently used keywords can be interpreted as follows:There are five sets of repeated terms, namely: (1) “collaborative consumption”, “collaborative consumption” (cc), and “online collaborative consumption”; (2) “peer-to-peer”, “p2p”, “peer-to-peer”, “peer-to-peer sharing”; (3) “motivation and motivations”; (4) “attitude and attitudes”; (5) “value and values” that are the most widely used in collaborative consumption research.Collaborative consumption research is dominated by two scopes: micro and meso. The microscope covers behavioural and interactional factors such as “trust”, “attitude”, “motivation”, “perceived risk”, “intention”, “perceived value”, “materialism”, and “social distance” ,78,79,80The most prominent characteristics of collaborative consumption are “peer-to-peer”, “sharing”, “customer-to-customer interaction”, and “mobile technology” ,89,90,91“Sustainability” and “sustainable consumption” are the two keywords indicating collaborative consumption studies of pro-environmental behaviour ,93.In contrast to food sharing research, collaborative consumption research has been supported by several theoretical foundations, including the theory of planned behaviour, social practice theory, practice theory and social capital theory ,96,97,98Netnography and case study methods are commonly used in collaborative consumption research ,99,100.The sharing economy, access-based consumption, and the collaborative economy intersect with collaborative consumption terminology ,105,106.E-government, fashion sharing, online car-hailing, car sharing, carpooling, and online food ordering are the most frequently explored units of analysis in collaborative consumption ,109,110.Customer and community are the actors of collaborative consumption activities ,113,114.However, of the fifty terms mentioned in the collaborative consumption analysis, the following keywords were identified:This section divides the food sharing and collaborative consumption keyword analysis into six categories: characteristics, research objects, methods, theoretical background, unit analysis, and actors .CharacteristicsThere are similar characteristics between food sharing and collaborative consumption: sharing, sustainability, and the sharing economy; the latter of which is an umbrella concept for the sharing movement ,114. In Collaborative consumption is a sustainable business model which aims to create value from three factors: economic, social, and environmental , in lineResearch ObjectsCollaborative consumption involves a broader scope of sharing activity than in food sharing research, which focuses on food as the object. Transportation, fashion, e-government, and food are the objects of collaborative consumption research. Hospitality and accommodation also represent collaborative consumption research subjects not captured by the keyword analysis. Even though the word “food” appears in the collaborative consumption keyword analysis, the context is potluck, gathering, and online food delivery activities ,111,117.MethodsQualitative methods dominate food sharing and collaborative consumption analysis. Collaborative consumption and food sharing analysis in the digital era is still at an early stage and, therefore, requires a more in-depth analysis. These two studies lack quantitative methods ,121. QuaTheoretical BackgroundReciprocal altruism and exchange are motivations highlighted in food sharing research. These two terms relate to Social Exchange Theory (SET) foundations. In SET, the interaction between two or more individuals constitutes a sustainable relationship if the benefits outweigh the costs that it entails. However, if the opposite is the case then the interaction will cease. Therefore, SET is more renowned as a cost and benefit analysis ,124,125.Three theories are captured in collaborative consumption research: the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Social Practice Theory (SPT), and Social Capital Theory (SCT). Several studies that use TPB as a theoretical basis are usually analysed using quantitative methods ,110. MosUnit of AnalysisFood sharing research is dominated by the macro context depicted by the sharing economy as the basis for more general and macro research, primarily into cultural and health issues that significantly influence the implementation of food sharing. Aspects of daily food consumption such as type of food, taste, and consumption patterns form part of the local culture. Food is also closely related to health since this is influenced by what is consumed ,14,130. ActorsBefore discussing food sharing actors, it is necessary to discuss food supply chain actors because there is a relationship between the two. Food supply chain actors consist of agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale, retail and the consumer . Food waThree actor roles are involved in collaborative consumption: the customer, the service provider, and the platform provider ,134. FooOne of the units of analysis studied deals with the constraints faced in cases of collaborative consumption . The resMost of the obstacles that arise are due to a lack of experience with food sharing and limited familiarity with certain foods within a collaborative consumption context , especiaThe efforts to reduce the obstacles encountered in food sharing activities are contained in The contents of This conceptual framework is structured on the basis of the four stages of Dubin’s theory-building method : (1) Uni1Units of AnalysisThe unit analysis of this study employs the three dimensions of SPT proposed by Shove (2012) and the extended attitude dimension from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The attitude as an extended dimension assists in clarifying the impacts of the three dimensions of social practice. Attitudes refer to an individual perceiving specific behaviour as favourable or unfavourable. Intentions, in turn, are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence such behaviour . Practic2Law of InteractionThis law covers the combination of the three components of social practice theory  in a unified whole, interrelated and supporting one another to implement a social practice .3BoundariesThere are three models of food sharing: for profit, for the community, and for charity . This pr4System StatesThe system states of this proposed framework include food sharing in the urban area. Food sharing communities are generally established in conurbations for three reasons. First, inhabitants of rural areas tend to be more satisfied with simple plant-based dishes, while city dwellers enjoy delicious food . This faThe analysis of problem-solving, the meaning of food sharing, competencies required by food sharing mediators, as well as the tools and materials that can support all activities carried out by food sharing mediators can be generalized and described as follows :The three dimensions of social practice theory are described through the indicators resulting from the content analysis. First, the meaning dimension: food sharing mediators need to re-position their values through three sustainability values, namely; economic, social, and environmental in order reduce the stigma of shame on the part of food recipients who receive assistance. Second, the competence dimension: skill and capabilities in the areas of technology and food management increase the trust of food recipients in the quality of food distribution and optimize the role of ICT in enhancing the performance of food sharing mediators. Knowledge of marketing communications for non-profit organizations provides the information required by food donors to increase food sharing participation and to educate the public to improve sustainable consumption behaviour. Third, the material dimension tangibly supports food sharing practice. The prerequisite materials of food sharing practice comprise the ICT infrastructure to increase food sharing performance; storage infrastructure to maintain the quality of perishable food; appropriate transportation to cover long distances and accelerated food donation distribution to prevent their accumulation and from becoming food waste in storage areas; modifying the distribution channel through cooperating with local communities to distribute food donations that are difficult to access by food sharing mediators; and a legal tool to increase participants’ trust in food sharing mediators.Proposition 1: Meaning, competencies, and materials of food sharing mediators engender the trust of food donors and food recipients ,126,161.Proposition 2: Meaning, competencies, and materials influence sustainable consumption behaviour .Proposition 3: Meaning, competencies, and materials improve the performance of food sharing mediators .Proposition 4: Trust influences food donors’ intentions and food recipients’ participation .Proposition 5: Sustainable consumption behaviour intensifies commitment to food sharing participation ,97.Proposition 6: Food sharing mediators’ performance affects the intention of food donors and food recipients to participate .Proposition 7: Food sharing mediators’ performance increases the trust of food donors and food recipients .Proposition 8: Meaning, competencies, and materials of food sharing mediators influences the intention to participate .From the content of These eight propositions are theoretical contributions for further research. The framework in this research can be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods to obtain empirical results that can improve research findings.This research has two objectives. The first is to recognize the characteristics of food sharing that are appropriate to a collaborative consumption context. The second is to develop a conceptual framework for food sharing within a collaborative consumption context. The first result is that the characteristics of food sharing emphasize the social aspects of care and cooperation, while collaborative consumption prioritizes the use of technology platforms and peer-to-peer interactions. The similarities between the characteristics of food sharing and collaborative consumption is that they have the goal of sustainability, sharing activities, and the sharing economy as their umbrella concept. This similarity of characteristics is used to develop a food sharing conceptual framework from a micro-analysis perspective within the context of collaborative consumption. Previous research has discussed many macro-levels such as socio-ecological, economic and cultural. However, food waste is still high because the main problems are at the micro-level such as consumer behaviour and food handling management. Therefore, this study focuses on micro-units of analysis to optimize strategies for reducing food waste through food sharing. Secondly, indicators for each dimension of social practice theory in food sharing practice and eight propositions from the conceptual framework developed in the theory of social practice perspective were identified.This study has several limitations, the first being that the research framework constructed in this study only covers food-sharing mediators. At the same time, there are two other actors in food sharing activities: food donors and food recipients. Therefore, further research is encouraged to develop a social practice conceptual framework for food donors and food recipients because the meaning, competence, and materials will be different for those actors . Secondl


Following publication of the original article , the autAuthor name ‘Shu-Hsien Liao’ was incorrectly written as ‘Shu-Shien Liao’.The affiliation ‘College of Medicine, Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan’ for Author Hsin‑Nung Shih is missing.The affiliation detail for Author Kuo‑Ti Peng was incorrectly given as 'College of Medicine, Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan' but should have been 'Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi County, Taiwan’.The original article  has been


Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology and the International Urogynecology Journal, followed by Nature Reviews Urology, were the top three most relevant sources in microbiome research in urology. Conclusions: One of the most crucial requirements for developing research policies and anticipating the scientific requirements of researchers is paying attention to the evolution of various scientific fields. Understanding research gaps and future needs in microbiome research in urology can be effectively understood by paying attention to the models, maps, and visualizations used in this research, which are the results of systematic analysis of scientific products in the most esteemed scientific journals in the world.Background: The main objective of this study is to provide the first characterization of the current research field of the clinical microbiome in LUTSs. Methods: First-of-its-kind scientometric insight into the historical development and structural state of the discipline is provided by a field analysis, mapping, and sub-analysis of articles for future research. On 22 December 2022, the entire Scopus database was searched without language or date restrictions. Search terms included “Chronic prostatitis”, OR “Interstitial cystitis”, OR “Lower urinary tract symptoms”, OR “Lower urinary tract dysfunction”, OR “Overactive bladder”, OR “Incontinence”, OR “Urolithiasis”, OR “Urothelium”, OR “Urine”, OR “Urology”, OR “urinary disorder”, OR “Pathophysiology”, OR “Benign prostatic hyperplasia”, OR “Benign prostatic enlargement”, AND “Microbiota”, OR “Microbiome”, OR “Urobio-ma”, OR “Urobiota; microflora”. The author and institutional data were transformed using the analytical tool Biblioshiny (a Shiny app for Bibliometrix), which took into account variations in author spelling as well as institutional naming and subgroups. Results: The specified search strategy was able to locate 529 documents from 267 sources published from 1981 to 2022. The average number of years from publication was 4.59 years. The authors with the most publications were Wolfe AJ and Brubaker I. The top three most collaborative networks were Loyola University Chicago, Loyola University Medical Center, and the University of California San Diego. The most frequently occurring words among the 50 nodes were: human, humans, nonhuman, female, adult, article, microbiology, microflora, microbiota, and controlled study.  Microbiome research is receiving more attention than in previous years. Scientists are actively investigating how the microbiome may be involved in a wide range of urological diseases ,2. ComplBibliometric techniques were used to analyze the literature on the role of the microbiome in LUTSs. Since the data on the connection that exists between the resident microbiota of the bladder and LUTSs is limited and studies have been focused on other organs’ resident microbiota, such as the gut and the vagina, and their role in LUTSs, we did not consider a limitation to a specific organ microbiome, and contributions made by authors, organizations, and nations/regions as well as the development of theoretical concepts, research sub-themes, and seminal manuscripts in the particular research field were analyzed.On 22 December 2022, the entire Scopus database was searched without language or date restrictions. Search terms included “Chronic prostatitis”, OR “Interstitial cystitis”, OR “Lower urinary tract symptoms”, OR “Lower urinary tract dysfunction”, OR “Overactive bladder”, OR “Incontinence”, OR “Urolithiasis”, OR “Urothelium”, OR “Urine”, OR “Urology”, OR “urinary disorder”, OR “Pathophysiology”, OR “Benign prostatic hyperplasia”, OR “Benign prostatic enlargement”, AND “Microbiota”, OR “Microbiome”, OR “Urobioma”, OR “Urobiota; microflora”. Non-English publications, editorials, meeting abstracts and proceedings, letters, errata, retractions, and corrections were excluded using Scopus analysis restriction tools.Titles and abstracts of the articles found during the initial search were reviewed. Records that involved a clinical investigation of the microbiome in urology were deemed relevant. Level 1–4 research, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, narrative reviews, and case reports/series were all original articles that were analyzed according to the system presented in To record the identified articles and citations, as well as countries, authors, institutions, and journals, Scopus analysis tools were used. In order to rank the main outcomes—country, journal, institution, and author—we quantified research productivity and impact by counting the number of research articles and the number of times each article was cited. The author and institutional data were transformed using the analytical tool Biblioshiny (a Shiny app for Bibliometrix), which took into account variations in author spelling as well as institutional naming and subgroups. The top 10 rankings are broken down by author, institution, and journal productivity. Based on productivity, countries are ranked, and additional continental outputs are summarized. By impact, the top 10 articles in the field are listed.n = 308), review articles (n = 138), notes (n = 33), editorials (n = 18), letters (n = 12), conference papers (n = 11), short surveys (n = 5), book chapters (n = 3), and other types of publications, such as errata . Overall, the top journals reflected the medical/surgical specialties of the area.According to our results based on the search strategy and single-database search, most of the mentioned studies were epidemiolocal, and it seems that the field is open for other study designs, such as diagnostic and randomized controlled trials. Regarding the newness of the subject, the roadmap for future research should be determined.One of the most crucial requirements for developing research policies and anticipating the scientific requirements of researchers is observing the evolution of various scientific fields. Understanding research gaps and future needs in microbiome research in LUTSs can be effectively understood by paying attention to the models, maps, and visualizations used in this research, which are the results of systematic analysis of scientific products in the most esteemed scientific journals in the world. Although results in other urological fields are comparable, Level-1 evidence is typically lacking in the top-ranked literature. Future bibliometric investigations of the field would be served by analysis of the role of the microbiome in urological disease subsets to further guide output.


In the published article, there were errors in affiliations 5–10.In affiliation 5, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases CIBERINF, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases (CIBERINF), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”In affiliation 6, instead of “Clinical Genetics Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain,” it should be “Clinical Genetics Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain.”In affiliation 7, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases CIBERINF, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Microbiology Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain.”In affiliation 8, instead of “Microbiology Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”In affiliation 9, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Respiratory Diseases CIBERES, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola, Spain.”In affiliation 10, instead of “Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Due to a production error, there was a mistake in affiliation 2. Instead of “Laboratory of Gravitational Physiology of Sensorimotor System, Institute of Biomedical Problems of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia,” it should be “Consultative and Diagnostic Department, Solovyov Scientific and Practical Psychoneurological Center of the Moscow Department of Health, Moscow, Russia.” Three authors—Maria Avdeeva, Anna Gudkova, and Alla Guekht—were assigned the wrong affiliation. The author list should therefore appear as follows:1*†, Maria Avdeeva2†, Nikita Shishkin1, Anna Gudkova2, Alla Guekht2 and Elena Tomilovskaya1Liubov AmirovaThe publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


In the published article, there are several errors in the affiliations of the authors. We apologize for these mistakes that we didn't notice, but it seems that between the initial submission and the proofed article, changes occurred probably due to the system (they were correct in the manuscript), also considering that almost all affiliations are mixed-up.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. It is also to be noted that the list of authors has not changed, neither their respective contributions.We would be grateful if you could make these important changes.Joachim Marti, Instead of “5 Department of Family Medicine, Center for Public Health and Primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”For 5 Department of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Center for public health and primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”The correct affiliation is “Ana Maria Vicedo-Cabrera, Instead of “8 Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9 Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics (IDYST), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.”For 8 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 9 Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.” Also, please write the name of the author Ana M. Vicedo-Cabrera.The correct affiliations are “Joelle Schwarz, instead of “5 Department of Family Medicine, Center for Public Health and Primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”For 10 Department of Family Medicine, Center for Public Health and Primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”The correct affiliation is “Anneliese Depoux, instead of “10 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.”For 11 Centre Virchow-Villermé and Centre des Politiques de la Terre, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.”The correct affiliation is “Francesco Panese, instead of “11 Centre Virchow-Villermé and Centre des Politiques de la Terre, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.”For 12 Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.”The correct affiliation is “Nathalie Chèvre, instead of “7ColLaboratoire (ColLAB), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.”For 13 Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics (IDYST), Faculty of Geosciences and the Environment, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.”The correct affiliation is “Nicolas Senn, instead of “5 Department of Family Medicine, Center for Public Health and Primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”For 10 Department of Family Medicine, Center for Public Health and Primary Care, Lausanne, Switzerland.”The correct affiliation is “9Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.”The only additional affiliation is for Ana M. Vicedo-Carbera as mentioned above “The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Materials and 24 in Applied Sciences) on emerging methods and technologies, the Special Issue of the Manufacturing Engineering Society 2021 (SIMES-2021) [Materials and Applied Sciences. After the complete success of the first , second ES-2021) ,7 was laOnce again, this Special Issue was promoted by the Manufacturing Engineering Society (MES) of Spain , with thIn this fourth edition, the joint Special Issue has gathered a total of 10 contributions (9 papers and 1 review) in the topics presented in Materials journal, six papers about cutting-edge advances in different fields of manufacturing engineering have been published after a rigorous review process. In particular, contributions have been published in “Advances and innovations in manufacturing processes”, “Robotics, mechatronics, and manufacturing automation”, and “Micro- and nanomanufacturing”. Regarding the specific contributions to the Special Issue in the Among them, the topic “Advances and innovations in manufacturing processes” received the highest number of contributions (representing 66.67%), followed by the topics “Robotics, mechatronics, and manufacturing automation” and “Micro- and nanomanufacturing” (each at 16.67%). Concretely, within the topic “Advances and innovations in manufacturing processes”, in the field of welding, García González et al.  presenteAnother interesting work in this topic, in the field of simulation and modeling of manufacturing processes, is presented by Fernández et al. . The objRelated to the topic “Robotics, mechatronics, and manufacturing automation”, the work by Calvo and Gil  introducMaterials in general, and among scientists and professionals from the industry in particular.Finally, the topic “Micro- and nanomanufacturing” received a contribution by Zamora et al.  within t


Due to a production error, there was an error in the second Reviewer affiliation. Instead of “Yogan Khatri, Ann Arbor, United States”, it should be “Yogan Khatri, Cayman Chemical, United States”.The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


Erratum to “Co‐administration of Inulin and Iron Fortificants Improves Iron Deficiency Biomarkers in Female Sprague Dawley Rats”Food Sci Nutr. 2022; 10: 2141–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2337Rizwan Ahmad, AM, Farooq, U, Anees, M, et al. Co‐administration of Inulin and Iron Fortificants Improves Iron Deficiency Biomarkers in Female Sprague Dawley Rats. In the originally published version of the article, authors Sanaullah Iqbal and Mavra Javed were erroneously omitted. The authors and their affiliations have now been corrected in the article. Also, in affiliation 3, the state name was changed from “Lahore” to “Islamabad.” Below is the updated list of authors and corresponding affiliations:1 | Umar Farooq2 | Mariam Anees3 | Riffat Aysha Anis2 | Sanaullah Iqbal4 | Summer Rashid5 | Mavra Javed4 | Waqas Ahmed4Abdul Momin Rizwan Ahmad1Department of Nutrition & Dietetics, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi, Pakistan2Department of Diet and Nutritional Sciences, IBADAT International University, Islamabad, Pakistan3Department of Biochemistry, Quaid‐i‐ Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan4Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition, University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan5Department of Food and Nutrition, Minhaj University, Lahore, Pakistan


The authors of this paper  have agrThe authors apologize for not including her in the original paper and for any inconvenience caused to the readers by this change.The correct authorship should be as follows:1, Sadeek A. Sadeek 2, Ippolito Camele 1,*, Hanem M. Awad 3 and Amira A. Mohamed 4Hazem S. Elshafie 1 School of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy2 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt3 Department Tanning Materials and Leather Technology, Centre of Excellence, National Research Centre, El-Buhouth St., Dokki, Cairo 12622, Egypt4 Department of Basic Science, Zagazig Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology, Zagazig 44519, Egypt


In the article by Malagola et al.,th author. Dr. Bocchia’s affiliation is “Hematology Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.”Monica Bocchia has been added and should appear as the 24The affiliation for Lara Aprile should be “SC Ematologia, Ospedale S.G.Moscati, Taranto, Italy.”


Affiliation 1. Instead of “1Clinical College of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China,” it should be “1Clinical College of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.”In the published article, there was an error in The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


There is an error in the title. The correct title for “MMMELD-XI Score Is Associated With Short-Term Adverse Events in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction” is “MELD-XI Score Is Associated With Short-Term Adverse Events in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection.”In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation(s) for Xiaoxu Xie. Instead of “Department of Cardiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China,” it should be “Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.” In the published article, there was also an error regarding the affiliation(s) for Yuwei Wang. Instead of “Department of Cardiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China,” it should be “Fujian Yirong Information Technology Corporation, Fuzhou, China.” In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation(s) for Yansong Guo, Sunying Wang, Manqing Luo, Kaiyang Lin, Na Lin, Qingyong Yang, Tian Zou, Xinan Chen, and Xianwei Xie. Instead of affiliation(s) “Department of Cardiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China,” it should be “Department of Cardiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, China.”In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation(s) for Yansong Guo. As well as having affiliation 1 “Department of Cardiology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, China,” they should also have affiliation 4 “Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fujian Provincial Center for Geriatrics, Fujian Clinical Medical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuzhou, China,” and 5 “Fujian Heart Failure Center Alliance, Fuzhou, China.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Shuaibing Lu was not listed as a co-first author in the published article. The corrected author list appears below.1†, Fusheng Ge1†, Shuaibing Lu1†, Zhiming Shan2, Liangqun Peng1, Junhui Chai1, Hongxing Liu1, Baodong Li1, Zhandong Zhang1, Jinxi Huang1, Yawei Hua1* and Yonglei Zhang1*Wei YangIn the published article, there was an error in affiliation 1. Instead of “Department of General Surgery, Henan Cancer Hospital, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China,” it should be “Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Affiliation “1.” Instead of “College of Life Sciences, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China,” it should be “Key laboratory of Plant Resource Conservation and Germplasm Innovation in Mountainous Region (Ministry of Education), Collaborative Innovation Center for Mountain Ecology and Agro-Bioengineering (CICMEAB), College of Life Sciences/Institute of Agro-bioengineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.”In the published article, there was an error in The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 1 as published. Instead of “Department of Psychology, Health Research Center, University of Almería, Almería, Spain,” it should be “CERNEP Research Center, University of Almeria, Almería, Spain.”Additionally, there was an error in affiliation 2 as published. Instead of “Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Psichobiology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain,” it should be “CEINSAUAL Research Center, University of Almeria, Almería, Spain.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Data are limited to ED visits with a discharge diagnosis. Data from Hawaii and Ohio are not included. Fewer than 50% of facilities in California, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oklahoma report to NSSP. In HHS Region 7, fewer than 50% of all ED visits have a discharge diagnosis.” On page 1253, the title for Figure 2 should have read, “Number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and percentage of COVID-19 hospitalizations resulting in intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation among persons aged 0–17 years, by age group — United States, August 1, 2020–August 21, 2021.”In the report “Trends in COVID-19 Cases, Emergency Department Visits, and Hospital Admissions Among Children and Adolescents Aged 0–17 years — United States, August 2020–August 2021,” on page 1252, in the Table, the second footnote should have read, “


Therefore, the author affiliations and addresses in this paper should have appeared as follows:Following the publication of this article, the authors have realized that the two affiliation addresses in the paper were written incorrectly: “The First People's Hospital” and “The Second People's Hospital” should have appeared as “The First People's Hospital 1, CAILI YANG1 and YAN WANG2JIXIN LI1Department of Neurology, The First People's Hospital of Linhai, Taizhou, Zhejiang 317000; 2Department of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Linhai, Taizhou, Zhejiang 317016, P.R. ChinaThe authors regret these errors in the presentation of the affiliation addresses, and apologize for any inconvenience caused.


In the article titled “Immunomodulatory Effects of Combination Therapy with Bushen Formula plus Entecavir for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients” , an AuthIn addition, Man Li, Yue-Qiu Gao, and Xue-Hua Sun should be listed as corresponding authors.


Nature 10.1038/s41586-020-2859-7Published online 28 October 2020Correction to: Institute, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa’. In addition, author Gordon Wells should be associated with an additional affiliation, ‘Africa Health Research Institute, Durban, South Africa’. In Fig. 1a, the circle representing the data for South Africa should be dark grey (indicating the AGVP data source) rather than light grey (indicating the 1000G data source). The Article has been corrected online.In this Article, the affiliation ‘South African National Bioinformatics Network, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa’, which is associated with authors Gordon Wells and Judit Kumuthini, should be ‘South African National Bioinformatics


In the paper by Savarese et al.,The correct affiliation is shown below.“Centre for Clinical and Basic Research, Department of Medical Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy”


The article was corrected on July 29, 2021.In the Original Investigation titled “Association of Chemotherapy, Enzalutamide, Abiraterone, and Radium 223 With Cognitive Function in Older Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer,”


Cai W, Zhang C, Suen HP, et al. The 2020 China report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change. Lancet Public Health 2021; 6: e64–8—In figure 6 of this Health Policy paper, the years ‘2015' and ‘2018' on the y-axis were the incorrect way around. This correction has been made as of Jan 8, 2021.


Department of Urology, Beijing Boai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Centre; School of Rehabilitation of Capital Medical University; No10. Jiaomen Beilu, Fengtai District, Beijing 100068, China.“Department of Urology of Capital Medical University, Beijing 100068, China”, should be removed.Following publication of the original article , the autThe original article  has been


To the editor,While bladder training has long been a first-line treatment for women with overactive bladder syndrome , 2, its The Author


Aesthet Surg J., sjaa382, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa382, in the originally published version of this manuscript, errors were noted in co-author Joel Schlessinger’s name, affiliation, and disclosure statement. This corrigendum corrects errors in the previously published version.In the article “The Second of Two One-Year, Multicenter, Open-Label, Repeat-Dose, Phase II Safety Studies of PrabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines in Adult Patients” by Lorenc et al in In the author list and affiliations, Joel Schlessinger’s full name should read: “Joel Schlessinger” and his affiliation should read: “Dr Schlessinger is a dermatologist in private practice, Omaha, NE, USA.”The Disclosure section should read: “Dr Schlessinger is a shareholder of Evolus, Inc.,  and has served on the advisory board; he is also a shareholder of AbbVie Inc. , and has served as a researcher for Merz , Galderma , Allergan /AbbVie  and Croma Pharma ”. The author regrets these errors.


There is an error in affiliation 1 for author Ozlem Serpil Cakmakkaya. The correct affiliation 1 is: Department of Medical Education, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-021-21057-y, published online 1 February 2021.Correction to: In this article the affiliation details for Ulman Lindenberger were incorrectly given as ‘Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany’ but should have been ‘Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany’, ‘Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, Berlin, Germany’. The original article has been corrected.


Bacillus acidophilus in osteoporosis and its roles in proliferation and differentiation” by Chen Chen, Baokang Dong, Yuming Wang, Qiang Zhang, Bangmao Wang, Shuzhi Feng, and Yu Zhu.In Volume 34, Issue 11 (2020), the Figure 4 was incorrect in the article titled “The role of Incorrect Figure 1Correct version Figure 1The author regrets for this error.


GBD 2017 Colorectal Cancer Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4: 913–332019; —In this Article, the affiliation for C La Vecchia should read “Clinical Medicine and Community Health, University of Milan, Milano, Italy” and the affiliation for M Jafarnia should read “Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran”. The affiliation for N Baheiraei should read “Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran”. These changes have been made to the online version as of Feb 12, 2020.


In the paper by Wang et al. , the affQilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shangdong University, China.


In the original article, there were errors.1. Instead of “College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Institute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China”, it should be “Institute of Bio-inspired Structure and Surface Engineering, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 2. Instead of “Embodied Artificial Intelligence and Neurobotics Lab, University of Southern Denmark Biorobotics, Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark”, it should be “Embodied Artificial Intelligence and Neurorobotics Laboratory, SDU Biorobotics, The Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the article titled “ALDH2 Overexpression Alleviates High Glucose-Induced Cardiotoxicity by Inhibiting NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation” , the autThe correct affiliation for the authors is: Department of Physiology, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui, 233030, China.


Sci., 2022, 13, 2270–2279, DOI: 10.1039/D1SC06267K.Correction for ‘SuFEx-enabled, chemoselective synthesis of triflates, triflamides and triflimidates’ by Bing-Yu Li  The authors would like to correct the second sentence in the Acknowledgements section, which should read “For HPLC analyses, we kindly acknowledge Marcus Frings and the support from RWTH Aachen University.”The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tuberculosis national reference laboratory services in the WHO European Region, March to November 2020’ by Maurer et al., published on 17 June 2021. This change was made on 29 July 2021. On request of the authors, the affiliation of Askar Yedilbayev was changed from “Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom” to “Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark” in the article ‘


Health SA Gesondheid 25(0), a1313. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v25i0.1313, the second author’s affiliation was given incorrectly in the ‘Affiliation’ section. The correct affiliation should be ‘Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa’ instead of ‘International University of Management, Windhoek, Namibia’.In the version of this article initially published, Mbidi, T.S.N. & Damons, A., 2020, ‘Effort and reward imbalance factors motivating Namibian professional nurses to participate in continuous professional development: A confirmatory factor analysis’, This correction does not alter the study’s findings of significance or overall interpretation of the study’s results. The publisher apologises for any inconvenience caused.


Following publication of the original article , the aut1Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050 People’s Republic of China” to “1Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Clinical College of Orthopedics, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300050 People’s Republic of China”.The correct affiliation should be changed from “


System Analysis of ROS-Related Genes in the Prognosis, Immune Infiltration, and Drug Sensitivity in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” [In the article titled “rcinoma” , the aut“Furthermore, we demonstrated that STK25 knockdown could increase the proliferation, migration, and invasion capacity of HCC cells.” should be corrected to “Furthermore, we demonstrated that STK25 knockdown could decrease the proliferation, migration, and invasion capacity of HCC cells.”


Giacomo Kock. The correct spelling is Giacomo Koch.An author name was incorrectly spelled as 7. Instead of “Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy,” it should be “Fondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS Rome, Italy and Dipartimento di Neuroscienze e Riabilitazione, Università di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation (s) for Giacomo Koch. As well as having affiliation(s) 7, they should also have affiliation 8.In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliationThe authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


The third sentence of the first paragraph should have read, “First, nearly half of patients (47.58%) showed positivity for nonprescribed substances, particularly for marijuana, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin.” This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Polysubstance Use Among Patients Treated With Buprenorphine From a National Urine Drug Test Database,”


The article “Development of the Experiences of Sex Work Stigma Scale Using Item Response Theory: Implications for Research on the Social Determinants of HIV”, written by Deanna Kerrigan, Tahilin S. Karver, Clare Barrington, Wendy Davis, Yeycy Donastorg, Martha Perez, Hoisex Gomez, Jessie Mbwambo, Samuel Likindikoki, Catherine Shembilu, Andrea Mantsios, S. Wilson Beckham, Noya Galai, Kitty S. Chan was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 17th March 2021 without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 29th April 2021 to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution.“The original article has been corrected.”


Seferidi P, Hone T, Duran AC, Bernabe-Ortiz A, Millett C. Global inequalities in the double burden of malnutrition and associations with globalisation: a multilevel analysis of Demographic and Healthy Surveys from 55 low-income and middle-income countries, 1992–2018. Lancet Glob Health 10: e482–902022; —In this Article, in the title and abstract, where it reads “Demographic and Healthy Surveys”, it should read “Demographic and Health Surveys”. This correction has been made as of March 15, 2022.


The affiliation for Patrizia Cornacchione, RT, included “Mediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Advanced Specialized Therapies,” but should have omitted that phrase to be given in its entirety as “UOC Oncological Radiotherapy, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Hematology, A. Gemelli University Hospital Foundation, Rome, Italy.” This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging,”


Basu S, Flood D, Geldsetzer P, et al. Estimated effect of increased diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk factors among low-income and middle-income countries: a microsimulation model. Lancet Glob Health 9: e1539–522021; —In this Article, Cara Ebert's affiliation should have been RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research, Essen (Berlin Office), Germany. This correction has been made as of Dec 8, 2021.


Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive hereditary muscular disease caused by a lack of dystrophin, leading to membrane instability, cell damage, and inflammatory response. However, gene-editing alone is not enough to restore the healthy phenotype and additional treatments are required. In the present study, we have first conducted a meta-analysis of three microarray datasets, GSE38417, GSE3307, and GSE6011, to identify the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between healthy donors and DMD patients. We have then integrated this analysis with the knowledge obtained from DisGeNET and DIAMOnD, a well-known algorithm for drug–gene association discoveries in the human interactome. The data obtained allowed us to identify novel possible target genes and were used to predict potential therapeutical options that could reverse the pathological condition. The dystrophinopathies are a spectrum of X-linked muscle diseases that include Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), and DMD-associated dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) .The lack of functional dystrophin leads to membrane instability that alters the normal muscle development, causing structural and metabolic changes and, consequently, leading to a chronic inflammatory response ,3. DMD uHere, we have first defined the disease module for DMD, by extracting 375 gene–disease associations from DisGeNET , and thehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/; accessed on 2 February 2021) was used to identify high-throughput gene expression datasets comparing muscle transcriptomic profiles from healthy donors vs. DMD patients. Inclusion criteria for the selection of the datasets were as follows: (i) whole-genome gene expression data; (ii) the datasets should contain both cases and matched controls; (iii) human muscle samples. Three datasets were included in the meta-analysis: GSE38417, GSE3307, and GSE6011 (The NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database  < 0.05 and an |effect size| > 2 were identified as differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and selected for further analysis. The random-effects model allows the effect size to vary from study to study by incorporating unknown cross-study heterogeneities in the model. The meta-analysis was performed using the web utility, NetworkAnalyst  [For the meta-analysis of GSE38417, GSE3307, and GSE6011, a random-effects model of effect size was used to integrate gene expression patterns from the two datasets. Genes with an adjusted ry 2021) , which ury 2021) .Functional enrichment analysis was conducted using the web-based utility, Metascape . MetascaRelationships among the enriched terms were visualized as a network in Cytoscape , considehttps://www.disgenet.org/; accessed on 2 February 2021), considering a gene disease association (GDA) score > 0.01, in order to obtain a DMD disease module. DisGeNET is one of the largest publicly available databases containing collections of genes and variants associated with human diseases [The STRING  databasediseases . DisGeNEFor the prediction of drugs potentially repurposable for use in DMD, three different approaches were used in the present study.First, the L1000FDW web-based utility was used to identify potential drugs for the treatment of DMD, based on the anti-signature perturbation analysis . L1000FWhttps://www.dgidb.org/; accessed on 2 February 2021) was downloaded and queried (Nov 2020) in order to select the drugs that can modulate the DMD signature genes. DGIDb is a comprehensive, free-to-access, online database containing information on drugs and drug targets and their interactions. The whole database was divided in two different sub-tables, collecting the drugs that have an upregulated action and the ones that instead downregulate, respecting the following filtering. Drugs with one of the following types of interactions were considered with a downregulated action: “agonist, inhibitor”, “allosteric modulator, antagonist”, “antagonist”, “antagonist, activator”, “antagonist, agonist”, “antagonist, allosteric modulator”, “antagonist, antibody”, “antagonist, binder”, “antagonist, blocker”, “antagonist, inducer”, “antagonist, inhibitor”, “antagonist, inverse agonist”, “antagonist, ligand”, “antagonist, ligand, partial agonist”, “antagonist, multitarget”, “antagonist, partial agonist”, “antagonist, potentiator”, “antagonist, substrate”, “antibody, inhibitor”, “binder, inhibitor”, “blocker”, “blocker, inhibitor”, “cleavage”, “inhibitor”, “inhibitor, activator”, “inhibitor, antibody”, “inhibitor, inducer”, “inhibitor, substrate”, “inhibitory allosteric modulator”, “inhibitory allosteric modulator, antagonist”, “inverse agonist”, “ligand, inhibitor”, “modulator, antagonist”, “modulator, inhibitor”, “negative modulator”, “negative modulator, agonist”, “negative modulator, agonist, antagonist”, “negative modulator, agonist, inhibitor”, “negative modulator, antagonist”, “negative modulator, binder, inhibitor”, “negative modulator, inhibitor”, “partial antagonist”, “suppressor”. Drugs that were classified with the following mode of action were considered as activating drugs: “activator”, “activator, inducer”, “adduct”, “agonist”, “agonist, activator”, “agonist, allosteric modulator”, “agonist, inducer”, “agonist, positive modulator”, “agonist, potentiator”, “agonist, stimulator”, “binder, activator”, “inducer”, “inducer, substrate”, “ligand, inducer”, “modulator, activator”, “modulator, inducer”, “modulator, ligand”, “positive modulator”, “potentiator”, “potentiator, activator”, “potentiator, binder”, “stimulator”.Secondly, the last updated version of the gene–drug interaction dataset from DGIdb   and Comparative Toxigenomics Database (CTD) (November 2016). The drugs were then ranked on the basis of their degree of distribution in the drug–gene network and the top 50 drugs were selected for further analysis.Only drugs and molecules already approved for clinical use or registered in clinical trials were included in all the analyses.n = 10,575). An adjusted p value (FDR) < 0.05 was considered for statistical significance.Drugs from the DGIDb database were selected based on a hypergeometric test assessing the significance of the overlap between the DMD signature and the total number of target genes of each drug, considering as background the number of genes in common between the meta-analysis and the STRING database  < 0.05 was considered for statistical significance.For the network-based prediction of the drugs, we first computed for each drug the expected mean and standard deviation of the degree of distribution by generating random gene lists of the same size of the input list. Then, we computed a z-score for deviation from the expected value, and the significance was calculated. An adjusted A total of 37 samples from healthy controls and 49 skeletal muscle biopsies from DMD patients were used in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis identified 735 DEGs between healthy and DMD samples, among which 234 were downregulated and 501 were upregulated in DMD  for DIAMOnD. These 375 genes were used to create the disease module for DMD. Its largest connected component is represented by 260 nodes and 1101 interactions . When coUsing the DMD disease module network identified from DisGeNET as input, DIAMOnD was applied to obtain a ranking of the whole STRING interactome based on the strength of association with the respective disease. We then computed the overlap between the DEGs from the meta-analysis and the DMD disease module, obtaining 46 genes. Among these 46 genes, we found five hubs  in the DMD disease module network, defined as seed candidate genes. Additionally, the DEGs in common with the first 735 predicted genes from DIAMOnD were considered as predicted candidate genes and included 75 genes, among which 72 were hubs in the general STRING interactome. Among the predicted candidate genes, only five genes were downregulated  and 67 upregulated in DMD. Overall, the seed candidate genes and the predicted candidate genes defined the DMD signature network A. The coMCODE clustering analysis of the DMD signature network revealed significant enrichment for the terms related to post-translational modifications (MCODE1), clathrin-mediated endocytosis (MCODE2), platelet degranulation (MCODE3), ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation (MCODE5), and immune response (MCODE4 and 6) B,C.Three different methodologies were applied for the prediction of potential repurposable drugs for DMD. First, the up- and downregulated genes from the predicted candidate genes and the seed candidate genes were used to perform the anti-signature perturbation analysis. We enlisted the potential drugs identified by the L1000FWD analysis in Next, the DGIDb database was used for drug prediction, by identifying drugs able to modulate the genes belonging to the DMD signature. When considering the drugs that could have a specific action to reverse the DMD phenotype, 27 drugs were found to reach statistical significance . Most ofFinally, a network-based approach, using the DrugBank and CTD databases, was applied . The comDMD is the most common dystrophy in children, with a worldwide prevalence of approximately 0.5 cases per 10,000 male births . CurrentWe defined a DMD disease module, consisting of 375 genes, which of 326 appear in the STRING network. We then found that the largest connected component of this module (260 genes) was bigger compared to a random expectation of a 10.000 gene set of the same size (z-score: 8.9) . This fiWe used the DMD disease module as input for DIAMOnD. This algorithm is very useful to find new gene–disease associations and it has largely proven its efficacy in other diseases ,35,36. HThe gene ontology enrichment analysis of the DMD signature network showed that a major role in the development of the disease is played by the immune responses and immunological activation C. This iWe provide here the first attempt to integrate different data sources and methods to predict new drugs that can be helpful for DMD. By employing different approaches, we cover different biological aspects that take into account transcriptomic expression (via L1000FWD) and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics information, via DGIDb and DrugBank/CTD.We found new possible drugs useful to reverse the transcriptomic changes of the genes in the DMD signature network using the L1000FWD . EmetineITGB2, ITGAM) that are associated with DMD in mdx mice [Considering the top drugs able to modulate the predicted candidate genes, both Dasatinib and Ilorasertib share the same target genes  and are used as anti-cancer drugs. On the other hand, Rovelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody studied for hemorragic shock, stroke, and multiple sclerosis. Rovelizumab has not been previously associated with DMD; however, we show that it is able to modulate two predicted candidate genes  have identified testosterone as a beneficial treatment in DMD . TestostThe unsupervised prediction of drugs currently used for the treatment of DMD is worth mentioning, as it underlines the validity of our methodological approach and of the obtained results.p < 0.001) overlap (49.3%) between the genes in the DMD signature network and the genes altered in BMD (We found a significant (d in BMD . For thiThis study represents the first attempt to integrate different data sources and approaches to find new, efficient drugs for DMD. Due to the high number of existing drugs, computational approaches are very helpful to test millions of possible associations and perform a pre-screening to be validated then in biological experiments . In the In the last decade, new therapeutic perspectives have been explored and used for dystrophinopathies. Although improvements in patient treatment and management have been able to slow down disease progression , DMD sti


Biomedicines2021, 9, 1762” [Oncotarget2017, 8, 57766–57781” [The journal retracts the article, “Animal Models in Bladder Cancer. Adhering to our complaint procedure, an investigation was conducted, which revealed an unacceptably high level of similarity between this manuscript and the previously mentioned publication. As a result, this article is retracted. Biomedicines.This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal The authors agreed to this retraction.


There is an error in affiliation 2 for author Qirui Cheng. The correct affiliation 2 is: Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, PR China.


In the article titled “Eye Manifestations of Shprintzen–Goldberg Craniosynostosis Syndrome: A Case Report and Systematic Review” , the autSupplemental In the Discussion section, the sentence, “though ectopia lentis was reported in three patients, our patient did not exhibit any degree of apparent lens dislocation,” should be deleted. In the abstract, “Ocular manifestations may include hypertelorism, downslanting palpebral fissures, proptosis, myopia, and ectopia lentis” should be changed to “Ocular manifestations may include hypertelorism, downslanting palpebral fissures, proptosis, and myopia.”


The Special Issue, “Chronic Diabetic Complications: Current Challenges and Opportunities”, is rich in scientific content, covering a wide field of diabetic complications via both original studies and reviews. Psillas et al.  discuss Gouveri and Papanas  and PenlOverall, a very satisfactory harvest. Diabetic complications remain a huge challenge ,15,16; w


Mapmaking and Mapthinking: Cancer as a Problem of Place in Nineteenth–century Englandby Agnes Arnold-ForsterSocial History of Medicine 2018, hky059, https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hky059In the original article, the caption for Figure 3 was incorrect stating: “Cholera Map of the Metropolis, 1849, Exhibited in the Registration Districts 1850, Wellcome Library, London”.This has been amended to reflect the correct caption of: “Alfred Haviland, The Geographical Distribution of Cancer , Divisions, 1851–1860, Wellcome Library, London”


This article has been corrected.1In the Invited Commentary titled “Surfactant Treatment—a National, Population-Based Study of Adherence to Best Practice, Off-Label Use, and Associations With Outcomes,”


Due to a production error, there was an error in affiliation 1 for author Andria Tziakouri. Instead of “Department of Neurology, Medical School, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus,” it should be “Department of Neurology, American Medical Center, Nicosia, Cyprus.”The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-74796-1, published online 19 October 2020Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in the title of the paper, where the word “Necrostatin” was incorrectly given as “necrostatin”. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article, and in the accompanying Supporting Information file.Furthermore, there was an error in Affiliation 2, which was incorrectly given as ‘College of Pharmacy, Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahakro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21983, South Korea’. The correct affiliation is listed below:College of Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahakro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21983, South Korea


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-021-81693-8, published online 26 January 2021Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 2, which was incorrectly given as ‘“Aldo Ravelli” Center for Neurotechnology and Experimental Brain Therapeutics, Department of Health Sciences, International Medical School, University of Milan, Milan, Italy’. The correct affiliation is listed below:Centro “Aldo Ravelli” per le Neurotecnologie e le Terapie Neurologiche Sperimentali, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano and ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milano, Italy.The original Article has been corrected.


Characterisation of vaccine breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Alpha variants and within-host viral load dynamics in the community, France, June to July 2021’ by Blanquart et al. published on 16 September 2021, the affiliation ‘Infection Antimicrobials Modelling Evolution, UMR1137, INSERM, Université de Paris, Paris, France’ was removed for François Blanquart and the remaining affiliations were renumbered. These corrections were made on 27 October 2021 upon request from the authors.In the article ‘


We greatly appreciate the contribution of Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, reviewers, authors, and all related colleagues over the past year.Polymers in 2021 increased compared with those in 2020. We never give up on research in any difficult situation. This editorial deals with the most cited papers published in the year 2021 in the section “Polymer Chemistry” of the journal Polymers.Unfortunately, the pandemic has not gone away in most countries and regions. However, the number of papers submitted yearly to Simona et al.  reportedIn 2021, the following Special Issues in the section “Polymer Chemistry” were successful: “Polymers Synthesis and Characterization” edited by Edina Rusen, “Advanced Polymer Based Materials: Production, Characterization and Applications” edited by Roberto Avolio, Veronica Ambrogi, Rachele Castaldo, Giovanna Gomez D’Ayala, and Francesca De Falco, “Cross-linked Polymers” edited by Łukasz Klapiszewski and Beata Podkościelna, “Polymer Micelles II” edited by Shin-ichi Yusa, Pratap Bahadur, Hideki Matsuoka, and Takahiro Sato, “Advanced Polymeric Functional Materials Using Reversible Deactivation Radical Polymerization Techniques” edited by Ana Barros-Timmons, Elodie Bourgeat-Lami, and Amilton Martins dos Santos. The deadlines of the Special Issues of “Polymers Synthesis and Characterization” and “Cross-linked Polymers” are 30 April 2022 and 31 May 2022, respectively. Please submit your paper to these Special Issues.There are signs of improvement against the pandemic, with the utilization of vaccines and drugs. Certainly, polymer chemistry can dissolve many problems of the modern era such as energy, environment, food, health, and so on. We hope 2022 will be a fruitful year.


Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8: e191–2032020; —In this Article, in the Acknowledgments section, support from the RISCC Network (grant 847845) was incorrectly omitted. This correction has been made as of Dec 14, 2021.


Due to a production error, there were errors in the affiliations for authors Tao Yang and Xiaohui Xu. For Tao Yang, instead of affiliation 3, it should be affiliation 4, “School of Preschool Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.” For Xiaohui Xu, instead of affiliation 4, it should be affiliation 3, “Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.”The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there was an error in the author order, which was “Zhang Z, Chen B, Zhu Y, Zhang T, Yuan Y, Zhang X and Xu Y.” The order of the authors should have been “Zhang Z, Chen B, Zhu Y, Zhang T, Zhang X, Yuan Y and Xu Y.”Dr. Yong Xu should not have been designated as one of the corresponding authors.Affiliations 1 and 2. Instead of “1 Key Laboratory of Women's Reproductive Health of Jiangxi, Jiangxi Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Nanchang, China” and “2 Central Laboratory, Jiangxi Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Nanchang, China,” it should be “1 Department of Pathology, Jiangxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Nanchang, China.”In the published article, there was an error in The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Local Burden of Disease Diarrhoea Collaborators. Mapping geographical inequalities in childhood diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000–17: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 395: 1779–801—2020; In this Article, Lorenzo Monasta was added to the author list as shown: “… Ali H Mokdad, Lorenzo Monasta, Yoshan Moodley, …”. The respective affiliation section has been amended. These changes have been made to the online version as of July 23, 2020.


Solanum melongena) is a rich source of phenolic and alkaloid compounds. It possesses various pharmacological effects, including, anti-oxidant, antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and antihyperlipidemic, which has been supported by numerous investigations. In this review, we evaluated the effects of eggplant on MetS and its complications comprising diabetes, high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, and obesity. Metabolic syndrome (MetS), also known as syndrome X, is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. Increasing age, obesity, physical inactivity, smoking, and positive family history are the risk factors associated with MetS, which increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity. Chemical compounds in the treatment of metabolic complications are associated with a lack of efficacy and severe side effects. Numerous studies have described the importance of herbs and natural products to treat human diseases. Therefore, nowadays, herbs-based diets and herbal medicines are recommended for the management of various diseases. The protective effects of several herbs have been reported against MetS such as rosemary, avocado, and silymarin. Eggplant (According to these studies, eggplant can control diabetes through the anti-oxidative properties and inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase activity. Also, eggplant has exerted an antihypertensive effect via ACE inhibitory activity. Eggplant may have shown protective effects on hyperlipidemia and obesity via the induction of lipoprotein lipase activity and the reduction of pancreatic lipase activity.Eggplant can be useful in the treatment of MetS and its complications. Abelmoschusesculentus (Metabolic syndrome (MetS), also known as syndrome X, is not a disease in itself. Instead, patients with metabolic syndrome often develop diabetes, abdominal obesity, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension -3. MetS culentus  are herbSolanummelongena) is one of the common plants grow all around the world, especially in Asian countries, the Middle East, and around the Mediterranean basin  pathway . Delphine uptake . Moreovee uptake . Chlorogenic acid has been found to enhance NO status, improve endothelial function, and lower blood pressure . Also, cSolanummelongena”, “aubergine”, “metabolic syndrome”, “diabetes”, “hyperglycemia”, “insulin”, “hypoglycemic”, “antihyperglycemic”, “antidiabetic”, “blood glucose”, “hypertension”, “blood pressure”, “hypotensive”, “antihypertensive”, “dyslipidemia”, “hyperlipidemia”, “high cholesterol”, “high triglyceride”, “hypercholesterolemia”, “hypertriglyceridemia”, “atherogenic”, “atherosclerosis”, “obesity”, “overweight”, “appetite”, “anti-obesity” and “weight loss”.In this review, various databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar have been involved. All the articles that have been chosen in this review were collected from the date of inception up to May 2020. The search keywords contained “eggplant”, “Effects of eggplant on diabetesDiabetes is a common metabolic disorder identified by abnormally high blood glucose levels and the insufficiency of secretion or function of endogenous insulin , 40. It invitro study has investigated the inhibitory effects of two eggplant species (S.melongena and S.macrocarpon) on starch hydrolyzing enzymes. The results of this study showed that the phenolic content of S. macrocarpon is higher than S. melongena extract and the methanolic extracts of both species inhibited α-glucosidase activity more than α-amylase activity in a dose-dependent manner    and the activity .Generally, these studies revealed that eggplant could manage/prevent diabetes and its complications through the anti-oxidative properties and inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase activity .Effect of eggplant on high blood pressureHigh blood pressure (BP), a common chronic condition, is created by the high force of the blood against artery walls and vascular dysfunction, which indirectly induces the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes , 63. TheS.melongena contains abundant ACh and can exert an antihypertensive effect. Also, it has been reported that oral administration of S.melongena  reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels by ACh in rat thoracic aorta rings  , an indicator of the measure of high body fatness , 88. It  method)  101). . invitrA randomized clinical trial has reported the effects of eggplant flour  on anti-oxidant status and body fat in 97 overweight women (the mean age of 47.5 years) for four months. This study has shown that eggplant increased the anti-oxidant capacity in plasma and reduced the body fat mass in volunteers .Because eggplant has the potential to reduce pancreatic lipase activity , future S. melongena) can be useful in the treatment of MetS and its complications due to possessing delphinidin (an anthocyanin), and chlorogenic acid (a phenolic acid). There have been several studies reporting that eggplant has antidiabetic properties because of its anti-oxidant effects and lowering the absorption of glucose in the digestive organs via inhibiting α-glucosidase and α-amylase activity.Metabolic syndrome is characterized by the co-occurrence of multiple changes in high blood glucose, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity, correlated with an enhanced risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Eggplant (On the other hand, eggplant contains abundant ACh and can act as an antihypertensive agent. Also, eggplant inhibits ACE activity and thereby can reduce high blood pressure. Clinical and animal studies have documented that eggplant has little effect on the lipid profile. Nevertheless, its inhibitory effect on pancreatic lipase activity and anti-obesity effect of eggplant have been shown. Generally, eggplant has shown protective effects on MetS and its complications. However, further studies on the most representative compounds of eggplant are necessary to deeply understand the mechanisms of action of this plant.


There is an error in affiliation 4 for authors Franca Dipaola and Raffaello Furlan. The correct affiliation 4 is: Internal Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Italy.The following information is missing from the Acknowledgements: This work was partially supported by Università degli Studi di Milano, Piano di Sostegno alla Ricerca—Linea 2–2019


In the original publication of the article, under the abstract section, the subsections “Ethical consideration” and “Study design and patients” was included incorrectly. The correct abstract includes the subsections Objectives, Design, Setting, Participants, Main outcome measures, Results and Conclusions.In addition, under the material and methods section, the subsections “Ethical consideration” and “Study design and patients” was published incorrectly. The correct text should read as below,Material and methodsEthical considerationsThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton Zurich, Switzerland.Study design and patientsIn a prospective multicentric interventional study, patients where endoscopic sinus procedures were planned at the Center for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Klinik Hirslanden, Zurich, the Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne and HNO-Klinik München-Bogenhausen, Munich, in the period between January 1st 2017 and December 31st 2018 were evaluated. Due to the structure of the health care system in these centers, patients were admitted with a minimal hospital stay of 24 h. Patients below the age of 18 were excluded. Patient specific data , the type of the procedure, the preoperative risk score or “day surgery risk score”, postoperative complications during the first 14 days and the length of hospital stay were analyzed. Data collection was performed using “ENTstatistics” software .The original article has been updated.


The authors requested to correct the spelling of Egon Willighagen and Andrea Senff‐Ribeiro's names, as well as the following affiliations: Charles Auffray to: “European Institute for Systems Biology and Medicine (EISBM), Vourles, France”; Noriko Hiori to: “Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio Research Institute at SFC, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan”; and Leonard Schmeister to: “Center for Mathematics, Chair of Mathematical Modeling of Biological Systems, Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany and Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Computational Biology, Neuherberg, Germany”.


In the original publication of the article, the following author name “Johan S. Nilsson” was missing and included in this correction as fourth author.The respective affiliation should read as below,1. Department of ORL, Head & Neck Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, 221 85 Lund, Sweden2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, SwedenThe original article has been corrected.


Due to a production error, there was an error in the affiliations published.Authors Giang Thi Tuyet Nguyen and Aleksi Sutinen should only have the following affiliation: “Faculty of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine and Biocenter Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland”. Author Arne Raasakka should have the following affiliation: “Department of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway”.The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


In the original article, there was an error in affiliation 1. Instead of “Natural Product and Medicinal Chemistry Division, Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, India” it should be “Natural Products and Medicinal Chemistry Division, Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, India”.In the original article, there was an error in affiliation 2. Instead of “Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (AcSIR), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India,” it should be “Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, India.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Warrier V, Kwong ASF, Luo M, et al. Gene–environment correlations and causal effects of childhood maltreatment on physical and mental health: a genetically informed approach. Lancet Psychiatry 2021; 8: 373–86—The appendix of this Article has been corrected as of Feb 8, 2022.


Li L, Poon MTC, Samarasekera NE, et al. Risks of recurrent stroke and all serious vascular events after spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: pooled analyses of two population-based studies. Lancet Neurol 2021; 20: 437–47—The appendix of this Article has been corrected as of June 9, 2021.


In this article the affiliation details for Hamid Mehrad were incorrectly given as ‘Private Gastroentrologist, Tehran, Iran' but should have been ‘Department of Internal Medicine, Loghman Hakim Educational Hospital, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran'.The original article  has been


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 3. Instead of “Women’s Clinic, Länssjukhuset, Kalmar, Sweden”, it should be “Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Region Kalmar County, Kalmar, Sweden, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake.In this article the authors Dirk Schürmann at affiliation Charité, University Medicine, Berlin, Olaf Degen at affiliation University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg and Heinz-August Horst at affiliation University Hospital Schleswig–Holstein, Kiel, Germany were missing from the author list.The original article has been corrected.