Several societies and associations have produced and disseminated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the quality of such guidelines has not been appraised so far. This study aims to evaluate the quality of CPGs for GDM published in the last decade using the AGREE II instrument.A systematic search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, New Zealand Guidelines Group, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Medlive, American Diabetes Association, Canadian Diabetes Association, International Diabetes Federation, as well as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database was conducted from inception to June 2018. The quality was assessed by four trained researchers independently, using the AGREE IIinstrument.p = 0.028). Overall score of 10 guidelines were 5 points and above, and four guidelines were 7 points. Among six domains, two domains: Scope and Purpose, and Clarity of Presentation, had high scores; however, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence received lower scores.A total of 13 guidelines, published from 2009 to 2018, were finally included. Among them, 11 guidelines were evidence-based guidelines, and 2 were expert consensus. Scores for each of the six AGREE II domains(Median ± IQR) were 94 ± 11, 89 ± 53, 58 ± 37, 100 ± 6, 79 ± 48, 100 ± 71 and 67% ± 42%, and guidelines based on expert consensus generally scored lower than evidence-based guidelines (Z = -2.201, In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. However, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating timely is needed. In some regions, more attention for guideline adaptation is recommended. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as “any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy” . The preIt is acknowledged that GDM is associated with a higher incidence of maternal and fetal morbidity, and may have long-term sequelae in offspring, leading to a higher social burden –8. In 20However, maternal and fetal adverse outcomes can be significantly reduced if GDM women are properly managed , 14. As Two reviewers independently reviewed the guidelines yielded by the search, based on these inclusion criteria: 1) full guideline is available in English or Chinese; 2) CPG is systematically developed under the auspices of medical specialty associations, government agencies at the federal, state or local level or health care organizations; 3) CPG contains recommendations regarding GDM interventions; 4) the guideline has been developed, reviewed or revised within the last 10 years.The following literature was excluded: 1) translations of guidelines; 2) short summaries, abstracts, brief versions or only sections of guidelines; 3) guidelines for patients and editorials.One reviewer performed a search of the following electronic databases from inception to June 2018: Guideline websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and China Medlive; websites of medical specialty associations, such as American Diabetes Association (ADA), Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF); and PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Chinese Periodical Database and, VIP Chinese Periodical Database.The search strategy used keywords “pregnancy”, “gravida*”, “conception”, “maternity”, “diabetes”, “hyperglycemia”, “insulin resistance”, “glucose intolerance”, “guideline”, “criteria”, “recommendation” and “standard”. For example, the PubMed search strategy is presented in Table Quality appraisal for included guidelines was conducted by four reviewers. Four trained appraisers  independently evaluated GDM CPGs using the AGREE II instrument . AccordiAfter quality appraisal, data extraction and analysis was performed by one reviewer and checked by another one. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion between them or with a third party. The main characteristics of these publications were extracted, including development organization, publication year, development method, and the number of references. In addition, the results of the AGREE II appraisals  were extracted from the publications included and a descriptive statistics analysis undertaken.p values of 0.05 or less were considered significant. In order to measure agreement among reviewers, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were also calculated. ICC values above 0.75 were considered to represent good reliability.The IBM SPSS Version 25.0  was used for all statistical analyses. Descriptive analysis values included median and inter-quartile range (IQR). Differences between CPG and expert consensus scores were calculated based on the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Z-score, and The systematic search retrieved a total of 107 publications, including 48 searched in relevant websites and 59 searched in electronic databases. Two reviewers independently selected guidelines according to the inclusion criteria. After excluding 48 duplicated records, 59 publications were considered to be potentially relevant. Then, the publications were screened by title and abstract as well as full text. Eventually, 13 guidelines fulfilled the inclusion criteria  Stakeholder InvolvementThe overall objectives of all the evidence-based guidelines were specifically described to some degree (item 1). Seven guidelines , 26, 27 3)Rigor of DevelopmentSix guidelines , 23, 27 4)Clarity of PresentationThe process of evidence retrieval and recommendation formation varied considerably in different guidelines. Four guidelines , 22, 23 5)ApplicabilityThe recommendations of 10 guidelines , 26, 29 6)Editorial IndependenceSeven guidelines , 26, 29 Nine guidelines , 25–27 cClinical Practice Guidelines are “statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options” . TherefoIn addition, views and preferences of the target population, competing interests of guideline development group members and procedures for updating the guideline were also influential factors in guideline quality, with only four guidelines , 22, 23 With evidence-based medicine being a critical scientific methodology in the development of CPGs, there is a growing international tendency to develop guidelines based on evidence. In this study, we included 13 guidelines, of which 11 –27, 29 wThe search for relevant publications was limited to Chinese and English language publications, and potentially relevant publications in other languages were not considered, which might lead to bias and scope limitations. Besides, the management recommendations for GDM could be presented not only in GDM CPGs, but also any other guidelines related to diabetes, so the search strategy in this research may be not comprehensive to include all relevant guidelines. Also, we may have missed guidelines published in other forms such as books and internal reports.In terms of the appraisal instrument, the AGREE II instrument can only assess the methodological quality of the guideline but not the quality of the content of the guideline , 26, 30.In general, the methodological quality of GDM guidelines is high, and evidence-based guidelines are superior to expert consensus. Although the development methodology of these guidelines was credible, the domains of Rigor of Development, Stakeholder Involvement and Editorial Independence still need improvement. A systematic approach in the development of these guidelines and updating guidelines in a timely manner is recommended.However, in some countries and regions, there were only GDM guidelines developed through expert consensus, and the process of the guideline development was far from being rigorous. Given the thought of using high quality evidence and reducing duplication of efforts, guideline adaptation could be an alternative. In additional, it is crucial that clinical staffs should use guidelines on the basis of local contextual factors.


Medicine, affiliation e is incorrectly listed and should appear as “Department of Emergency Medicine, Dankook University School of Medicine, Kangwon National University, South Korea.”In the article, “Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of a decision tree model in suspected acute appendicitis with equivocal preoperative computed tomography findings compared with Alvarado, Eskelinen, and adult appendicitis scores: A STARD compliant article”,


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-51479-0, published online 21 October 2019Correction to: The original version of this Article omitted an affiliation for Anna Nenarokova. The correct affiliations for Anna Nenarokova are listed below:Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences, 37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.Additionally, this Article contained typographical errors in the Acknowledgements section.Manayunkia worm sampling.”“We acknowledge financial support by the Czech Science Foundation (grants numbers 505/12/G112 and 14–28784 P), the European Commission , Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project no. LTAUSA17201), the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (project no. NN124220) and Consellería de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte, Valencia, Spain (APOSTD/2013/087). We thank Stephen D. Atkinson and Julie Alexander  for the help in now reads:Manayunkia worm sampling.”“We acknowledge financial support by the Czech Science Foundation (grant numbers 19-28399X (to AK) and 14–28784 P (to GAB)), the European Commission ), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project no. LTAUSA17201 (to PBS)), the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (project no. NN124220 (to EE)) and Consellería de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte, Valencia, Spain (APOSTD/2013/087 (to GAB)). We thank Stephen D. Atkinson and Julie Alexander  for the help in These errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of this Article, and in the accompanying Supplemental Material.


Nature Communications; 10.1038/s41467-018-08130-9; Published online Jan 16 2019.Correction to: The original version of this Article contained errors in the author affiliations.Affiliation 2 incorrectly read ‘Department of Neurology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130021 Jilin Province, China.’Affiliation 5 incorrectly read ‘Department of Otolaryngology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710061 Shanxi Province, China’Affiliation 9 incorrectly read ‘State Key Laboratory for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 102206, China.’This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


There is an error in the Funding statement. The correct name for the Funder is “Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning.”Additionally, in the published article, there were errors in affiliations 1 and 4. Instead of “Department of Clinical Laboratory, Pudong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China,” it should be “Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China,” and in affiliation 4, instead of “Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Fourth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Shanghai, China,” it should be “Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital affiliated to Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 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.


There is an error in authorship contributions for author Christopher Bunn. The correct authorship contributions for Christopher Bunn should be: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing–original draft, Writing–review & editing


In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation for Giorgio Leodori. As well as having affiliation two, “Department of Human Neurosciences, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy”, he should also have affiliation three, “Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, IRCCS Neuromed Institute, Pozzilli, Italy.”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 affiliation 3 for authors for Jan Eritsland and Geir Øystein Andersen. The publisher apologies for the error[s]. The correct affiliation 3 is: Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.


Peter Kraft's affiliations should appear as Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; and Klinikum Main-Spessart Lohr, Lohr, Germany.In the article, “Atypical presentation of giant cell arteritis in a patient with vertebrobasilar stroke: A case report”,


Instead of “Brain Connectivity Center, C. Mondino National Neurological Institute, Pavia, Italy,” it should be “IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.” 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


In the article titled “Effectiveness and Safety of Acupotomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Controlled Pilot Study” , there w


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-29290-0, published online 24 July 2018Correction to: In the original version of this Article, Károly Takács was incorrectly affiliated with ‘Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6EA, United Kingdom’. The correct affiliation is listed below.Hungarian Academy of Sciences, MTA TK “Lendület” Research Center for Educational and Network Studies (RECENS), Budapest, 1097, HungaryThis error has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


V. Sodha, MD.In the report “Global Routine Vaccination Coverage, 2018,” on page 937, in the list of authors, the fifth author should have been listed as Samir


In the article titled “Readiness of Sub-Saharan Africa Healthcare Systems for the New Pandemic, Diabetes: A Systematic Review” , the for


Kruk ME, Gage AD, Joseph NT, Danaei G, García-Saisó S, Salomon JA. Mortality due to low-quality health systems in the universal health coverage era: a systematic analysis of amenable deaths in 137 countries Lancet 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31668-4—In figure 2 of this Article , the y axis should read “deaths in 100 000s”. The affiliation for Prof Salomon should read “Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA”. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 20, 2018, and will be made to the printed Article.


Two author names were incorrectly provided as “Rozita Dara and Evan Fraser.” The names should be “Rozita A. Dara and Evan D. G. Fraser.” The order of the authors has also been corrected, as this was mistakenly changed during the manuscript revisions. Rozita A. Dara should appear as the second author and Evan D. G. Fraser should appear as the third author.Additionally, there was an error in affiliation 3. Instead of the “Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada,” it should be the “Arrell Food Institute and Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.”Lastly, there was an error in the keywords listed. A correction has been made to the Keywords.“Keywords: influenza virus, poultry, rapid diagnosis, big data, biosensor, infectious disease”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.


Jun Xin's correspondence address should appear as “Department of Urology The First Hospital of Quanzhou Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, 250 East Street, Licheng District, Quanzhou 362000, Fujian, China (e-mail: 15859516868@163.com).”In the article, “Alveolar paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma mimicing epididymitis: Case report and literature review”,The hospital name in the affiliations should appear as “The First Hospital of Quanzhou Affiliated to Fujian Medical University.”


Pinus radiata, Maule Region, Chile.” Please see the complete, correct There are errors in the caption and variable names for


Correction to: BMC Bioinformatics (2019) 20 (Suppl 2): 101https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2620-0After publication of this supplement article , it has This information is required to comply with NLM/NIH  policies regarding manuscript publication.Dr. Chunlin Xiao’s affiliation should include “National Library of Medicine”, making the full affiliation “National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894, USA.”2.The ‘Acknowledgements’ section should include “Dr. Chunlin Xiao was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.”As such, with regard to the author affiliations and the ‘Acknowledgements’ respectively, please be advised that:


Program of Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile,” it should be “3 Ph.D. Program of Microbiology, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.”Instead of “4 Microbial Ecology of Extreme Systems Laboratory, Biological Sciences Faculty, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile,” it should be “4 Microbial Ecology of Extreme Systems Laboratory, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.”Instead of “5 Department of Chemistry, Universidad Catoìlica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile,” it should be “5 Department of Chemistry, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.”The authors apologize for these mistakes and state that corrections does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Erikson’s principle of Vital Involvement (VI) holds that psychosocial health in older adulthood rests on elders’ meaningful, reciprocal engagement with the world outside the self. Older adulthood’s focal tension between Integrity and Despair is fundamentally grounded in elders’ “…vital involvement, with life’s people, materials, activities, ideas, institutions, and so forth. [This engagement is] … every bit as important as …[the] reminiscence”  we have long identified as a path to wisdom. Through several empirical projects, our team has identified five dimensions of VI in older adulthood. Each is clearly invoked as an elder engages such arts media as clay, paint, paper, fiber, wood, words, music, movement, and more. These VI dimensions are also invoked in an elder’s creative engagement with the people, materials, activities, and institutions of everyday life. This presentation illustrates ways that VI, through these dimensions, both facilitates and also expresses psychosocial well-being in older adults.


They should appear as:In the article, “Effect of different surgical type of coronary artery bypass grafting on kidney injury: A propensity score analysis”a Kidney Research Center, Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, b Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital


Jie Wen should be affiliated with “1.Department of Pediatric Orthopedics, the Children's Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China” and “2.Department of Pediatric Orthopedics, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.”In the article, “Comparison of mid-term efficacy of spastic flatfoot in ambulant children with cerebral palsy by 2 different methods”,


In the article titled “Overhydroxylation of Lysine of Collagen Increases Uterine Fibroids Proliferation: Roles of Lysyl Hydroxylases, Lysyl Oxidases, and Matrix Metalloproteinases” , there w


In the article titled “Chemotherapeutic Drugs and Mitochondrial Dysfunction: Focus on Doxorubicin, Trastuzumab, and Sunitinib” , the aut


Tuina, acupuncture, traction, and Chinese herbs play an important role in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of the four commonly utilized treatment modalities are still unclear. To compare the effectiveness and safety of the four interventions for lumbar disc herniation. Randomized controlled trials comparing any two of the four interventions in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were identified using the following databases: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Wanfang data, and network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. One hundred and twenty-one studies involving a total of 13075 patients were included. In all the outcome measurements, traction demonstrated a worst effectiveness, and Tuina and acupuncture demonstrated a best effectiveness, but no significant differences were found between Tuina and acupuncture. Compared with Tuina or acupuncture, Chinese herbs showed a similar effectiveness in Visual Analogue Score and Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores, but an inferior effectiveness in invalid rate and cure rate. In the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, Tuina and acupuncture were superior to traction or Chinese herbs, and the effectiveness of traction was the worst. However, considering the limitations of this review, more high-quality trials, especially those comparing Chinese herbs with the other three interventions, should be carried out in the future to further confirm the current findings. Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is one of the common spinal disorders, which manifests as low back pain or radiculopathy radiating to the lower limb with a distribution area corresponding to the dermatomes of the related nerve roots , influenTraditional Chinese medicine, which evolved over thousands of years, plays an important role in the treatment of LDH, in which Tuina, acupuncture, and Chinese herbs are routinely utilized treatment modalities –10. TuinIn recent years, network meta-analysis has been developed. Compared with traditional meta-analysis, it can combine data related to multiple interventions, compare different managements according to indirect information, and generate a ranking for different interventions based on the efficacy . TherefoA medical literature search was performed in the following databases from their inception through May 1st, 2018: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang data. The language of these studies was limited to Chinese and English. The searching was performed using medical subject headings (MeSH) and key words, including “herniated disc”, “herniated disk”, “lumbar disc herniation”, “disc prolapse”, “disk prolapse”, “intervertebral disc displacement”, “intervertebral disk displacement” “slipped disc”, “slipped disk”, “lumbar”, “massage”, “Tuina”, “manipulation”, “traction”, “acupuncture”, “electroacupuncture”, “warm needling”, “Chinese herbs”, “Chinese patent medicine”, “decoction”, “capsule”, “randomization” and “randomized controlled trial”. which were combined in search strategy. Meanwhile, the MeSH and keywords in Chinese including “zhui jian pan tu chu”, “zhui jian pan tuo chu”, “zhui jian pan yi wei”, “zhui jian pan peng chu”, “yao”, “an mo”, “tui na”, “shou fa”, “qian yin”, “zhen ci”, “dian zhen”, “wen zhen”, “zhong yao”, “zhong cheng yao”, “jiao nang”, “tang ji”, “sui ji” and “sui ji dui zhao shi yan” were used for searching literature in Chinese. The details of search strategy are showed in Appendix (page 1-2) . Two invTrials were included based on the following criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) patients who were diagnosed with LDH based on symptoms, signs, and imaging examination; (3) trials comparing any two of the four interventions including Tuina, traction, acupuncture, and Chinese herbs; (4) trials including at least one comparison in which each of the four interventions was employed as sole management; and (5) trials with complete data.The following studies were excluded if (1) literature review; (2) duplicate studies; (3) case reports; (4) animal experiments; (5) studies comparing different types of Tuina, acupuncture, traction or Chinese herbs, such as those comparing manual acupuncture with electroacupuncture, and comparing oblique-pulling manipulation with lumbar rotation manipulation in sitting position.Two investigators independently worked for data extraction, and they collected the following information: (1) basic characteristics, including author name, study design, age and gender of patients, intervention, sample size, outcomes, adverse events, and follow-up; (2) primary outcomes, including invalid rate, cure rate, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) Scores.Quality assessment of the included trials was independently performed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool by two investigators while a third investigator checked disagreements. Risk of bias included the following items: (1) random sequence generation; (2) allocation concealment; (3) blinding of participants and therapist; (4) blinding of outcome assessment; (5) attrition bias; and (6) selective reporting. The judgements on these items were categorized as “low risk of bias”, “high risk of bias”, or “unclear risk of bias”.A network meta-analysis was carried out using STATA version 14.0. Continuous variables (VAS and JOA) were analyzed using mean difference (MD) and its 95% credible interval (CrI), while dichotomous variables  using Odds Ratio (OR). At the beginning of our network meta-analysis, pair-wise meta-analyses were performed, then “mvmeta” package was used to perform the plots of different comparisons, the rank plots based on probabilities and the surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) for different endpoints. Furthermore, node-splitting analysis and loop-specific approach were used to evaluate inconsistency, and the Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the importance of the outcomes.15331 articles were identified in our initial search, from which 6197 articles were excluded for duplications, and 8114 were excluded by reading titles and abstracts. In the remaining 1020 articles, full texts were obtained to check eligibility, in which 536 studied were excluded because of combined treatments in groups, 310 studies were excluded for comparing different types of acupuncture, Tuina, traction, or Chinese herbs in groups, and 53 studies were excluded because of absence of data. Finally, 121 studies were included in our final analysis (Appendix page 2-11). The review included 121 trials involving 13075 patients, and the sample size ranged from 32 to 900 cases. All the included studies were designed as RCTs. 82 studies were two-arm studies, 35 were three-arm studies, 3 were four-arm studies, and 1 was five-arm study. 31 studies compared Tuina with acupuncture, 34 studies compared Tuina with traction, 29 compared acupuncture with traction, 12 compared Tuina with Chinese herbs, 12 compared acupuncture with Chinese herbs, and 9 compared traction with Chinese herbs. 4241 patients were included in Tuina groups, 3951 patients in acupuncture groups, 3811 patients in traction groups, and 1321 patients in Chinese herbs groups. In terms of the criteria of invalid rate and cure rate, 65 trials employed the criteria of traditional Chinese Medicine syndrome diagnosis, 5 trials used the criteria of clinical research principle of new herbal medicine, 2 trials used the criteria of occupation standard of traditional Chinese medicine, 8 trials used the criteria of Japanese orthopedics association, and the others used the criteria which were similar to above-mentioned standard but did not mention the source. The baseline characteristics of each study are presented in Appendix (page 12-16).The risk of bias assessment is summarized in Appendix (page 17-21). The included patients were randomly assigned to Tuina, Acupuncture, traction or Chinese herbs group. In the generation of randomization sequence, 26 studies used random number tables, 5 studies used network stochastic system and others did not mention the randomization methods. No studies mentioned allocation concealment and method of blinding, and all the studies reported complete data.The results of pair-wise meta-analysis are demonstrated in Appendix (page 24). One hundred and fifteen studies involving 12640 patients and 121 comparisons reported invalid rate . CompareIn terms of cure rate, 115 studies involving 121 comparisons and 12629 patients were merged for analysis . CompareVAS was reported in 29 studies including 2513 patients . When co20 studies involving 1979 patients reported JOA scores . As illuThe plots of probability and SUCRA are illustrated in Appendix (page 30-33). Node-splitting analysis was performed to evaluate the inconsistency by comparing direct and indirect effects, indicating no significant inconsistency  and the results were reliable. In addition, the results of Loop-specific approach showed no significant inconsistency in the comparisons of closed circles in outcomes of invalid rate, cure rate or JOA, but significant inconsistency in VAS .We summarized the GRADE judgements in Appendix (page 25-29). According to the suggestions of GRADE workgroups, we combined the evidences of direct and indirect comparisons and chose a higher level, and the results demonstrated the evidences provided in this review were low or very low.13 studies mentioned adverse events, of which 9 studies reported no adverse events, 4 studies reported adverse events, including worsened pain in 22 cases, raised blood pressure in 2 cases, and malposition of facet joints in 12 cases, but no studies mentioned the groups in which the adverse events occurred.This is the first network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the four widely utilized treatment modalities for LDH. The results demonstrated that in the four interventions, the effectiveness of lumbar traction was the worst, and the effectiveness of Tuina and acupuncture was better than Chinese herbs in invalid rate and cure rate, but similar as Chinese herbs in VAS and JOA.α, IL-6 [β-EP [The four therapies have different treatment mechanism for LDH. Tuina can decrease the compression of nerve root, relieve the adhesion between nerve root and herniated disc , reduce α, IL-6 –24, and -6 [β-EP  in patie-6 [β-EP , produce-6 [β-EP , 28, and-6 [β-EP . Regardi-6 [β-EP , decreas-6 [β-EP , and pro-6 [β-EP . In term-6 [β-EP  and enha-6 [β-EP , and neu-6 [β-EP , 36. SubHowever, the four interventions demonstrated different effectiveness, which may be attributed to different mechanism for LDH. The primary symptom of LDH is low back pain and radicular leg pain, so it is critical for patients to relieve pain. In this review, the four outcome measurements including invalid rate, cure rate, VAS, and JOA are used to evaluate pain directly or associated closely with pain. Tuina, acupuncture, and Chinese herbs have direct analgesic effect, but lumbar traction performs its work slowly  and doesIn terms of the rank of probability for the four interventions, it is reasonable that Tuina and acupuncture demonstrated a highest probability to be the best intervention in cure rate and invalid rate, but it is noteworthy that Chinese herbs unexpectedly showed superiority in VAS and JOA more than other three interventions. We think the reasons may be attributed to two aspects. First of all, in this review most of trials compared the effectiveness among Tuina, acupuncture, and traction, but the number of comparisons involving Chinese herbs was small. Only four trials compared Chinese herbs with traction or acupuncture in JOA or VAS. As shown in Our review has two methodological strengths. In this research network meta-analysis was carried out to compare the direct and indirect effect of the four treatments, and the SUCRA plot was performed to estimate the ranks of interventions, which may facilitate TCM physicians to make treatment strategies correctly. However, our review has its disadvantages. First, the evidence from GRADE for included outcomes was relatively low. Second, the number and sample size of the trials comparing Chinese herbs with the other three interventions were small. Third, only four outcomes were analyzed in our research, more outcomes such as Euro-Quol questionnaire, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), and 36-Item Short Form (SF36) were also relevant but not analyzed, because no included studies reported them. Fourth, in some studies the durations of treatment were short, and most of studies did not report the duration of follow-up. These limitations may affect the final outcomes. In addition, most of trials did not mention the adverse events, so the safety of the four treatments could not be evaluated by SUCRA in this review.In conclusion, our review suggested, among the four interventions, Tuina and acupuncture were superior to traction or Chinese herbs, and the effectiveness of traction was the worst in the treatment of LDH. However, considering the limitations of this study, more high-quality trials, especially those comparing Chinese herbs with the other three interventions, should be carried out in the future to further confirm the current conclusions.


Pretreatment C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio is associated with poor survival in patients with stage IB‐IIA cervical cancerWeiwei Zhang, Kejun Liu, Bin Ye, Weijiang Liang & Yazhou RenCancer Medicine 2018; 7: 105‐113.The first author of this article is also affiliated to “Department of Medical Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China” and this should be the Dr. Zhang’s first affiliation. Please see below author byline and their correct affiliation:Weiwei Zhang1,2, Kejun Liu3, Bin Ye2, Weijiang Liang1 & Yazhou Ren41Department of Medical Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 510515 Guangdong, China2Department of Medical Oncology, The Sixth People’s Hospital of Chengdu, 610051 Sichuan, China3Department of Medical Oncology, Dongguan People’s Hospital, 523059 Guangdong, China4Big Data Research Center, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 611731 Sichuan, Chinawjliang22@126.com) is also the corresponding author of this article and this paper is funded by Guangdong Province Science and Technological Program in China (Grant no. 2011B031800042).Additionally, Dr. Weijiang Liang (email: The corresponding author apologises for this error.Cancer Med. 2018;7:105:113.Zhang W, Liu K, Ye B, Liang W, Ren Y. Pretreatment C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio is associated with poor survival in patients with stage IB‐IIA cervical cancer.


Nature Communications; 10.1038/ncomms10286; published online 8 January 2016Correction to: This Article contains an error in the author affiliations. The correct affiliation for author Ruchi Shukla is ‘MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK’, and is not ‘Mater Research Institute – University of Queensland, TRI Building, Woolloongabba QLD 4102, Australia’.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-28027-3, published online 25 June 2018Correction to: In the original version of this Article, Ines Potočnjak and Sanda Dokoza Terešak were incorrectly affiliated with ‘University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Šalata 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia’. The correct affiliation is listed below.University Hospital Centre Sisters of Charity, Department of Medicine, Vinogradska cesta 29, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaThis error has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


Res., 2018, 7, 558–564.Correction for ‘Goodbye to the bioassay’ by Jay I. Goodman  The author would like to add an additional acknowledgement that was omitted from the original article with details of the funding source for this work as follows: “NIH funding: NIH-NIEHS, P42 ES004911, Superfund Program “Environmental, Microbial, and Mammalian Bimolecular Responses to AhR Ligands”, N. E. Kaminski, PI, J. I. Goodman, Core Leader, Training Core; 1 April 2013 through 3 March 2019.”The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliations 2 and 3. Instead of “University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China” and “College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China,” it should be “College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China” and “University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 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.


Using data from NHATS, we aimed to identify characteristics  that distinguish joint vs. separate presence of physical frailty (by the Fried’s) and cognitive impairment . Of the 7,497 older adults, 25.5%, 5.6%, and 8.7% had CI only, frailty only, and both, respectively. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, current smoker, single disease, and knee surgery history uniquely identified “frailty only”. Although none was found to uniquely identify “CI only” or “both”, surgery history and comorbidity were strongly associated with “frailty only” and, to a lesser degree, “both”, but not “CI only”. The findings advocate for treating physical frailty and CI as overlapping yet distinct conditions, and prioritizing comorbidity, surgery history, and smoking status in clinical screening of frailty and CI before formal diagnostic assessments.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-27550-7, published online 19 June 2018Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 8, which was incorrectly given as ‘The Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 636921, Singapore’. The correct affiliation is listed below:‘Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 636921, Singapore’In addition, in the Supplementary file ‘Figure S1 S2 S3 Table S1 S2’, the Present Addresses for the authors Ramu Muthu Selvam and Mohammad Abdulkader Akbarsha were omitted.These errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article, and in the accompanying Supplementary Information file.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-019-13140-2, published online 27 November 2019.Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliations. Silvia Varricchio, Gennaro Ilardi and Stefania Staibanow were incorrectly associated with ‘Department of Public Health, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy’ instead of the correct ‘Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy.’ This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


There is an error in affiliation 4 for author Marc-André Weber. The correct affiliation 4 is: Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.


The correct author order's list is Qilong Ren1†, Guangyu Wu2*†, Weinan Xing2*, Jiangang Han2, Pingping Li2, Bo Li3*, Junye Cheng4, Shuilin Wu4, Rujia Zou1, Junqing Hu1*.In the original article, the author order list was incorrectly showed as Guangyu WuIn the published article, reflecting the above correction, there was an error with affiliations “1” and “2”. Instead of appearing as “1 College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China” and “2 State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials, College of Materials Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China,” they should be reversed to appear as “1 State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials, College of Materials Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China” and “2 College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China”.Furthermore, there was an error in affiliation “4”. Instead of “Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Center of Super-Diamond and Advanced Films, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China,” it should be “Center of Super-Diamond and Advanced Films, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 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.


The corresponding author information should be Chun-Li Liu, Department of Cardiology, The People's Hospital of Yan’an, No. 57 Qilipu St, Baota Qu, Yan’an 716000, China (E-mail: chunliliu007@126.com).In the article, “A pilot study of the effect of ezetimibe for postprandial hyperlipidemia”,


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-019-09860-0, published online 3 May 2019.Correction to: The original HTML version of this Article was updated shortly after publication to add links to the Peer Review file.In addition, affiliations 16 and 17 incorrectly read ‘School of Medicine Sydney, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, WA, 6160, Australia’ and ‘St Vincent’s Clinical School, University of New South Wales Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.’ This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation “1” and “2.” Instead of “College of Life Science and Technology, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Xinyang, China” and “College of Animal Science and Technology, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Xinyang, China”, it should be “College of Life Science and Technology, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing, China” and “College of Animal Science and Technology, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing, China,” respectively.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.


Scientific Data 6, 190029 10.1038/sdata.2019.29 published online 26 February 2019Correction to: In the original version of this Data Descriptor the word “Gulf” was incorrectly spelled in the affiliation “Ocean College, Beibu Gulf University, Qinzhou, 535011, Guangxi, China”. This has now been corrected in both the HTML and PDF versions.


In the article titled “Mitochondrial (Dys) Function in Inflammaging: Do MitomiRs Influence the Energetic, Oxidative, and Inflammatory Status of Senescent Cells?” , there w


A case of reassortant seasonal influenza A(H1N2) virus, Denmark, April 2019’ by R Trebbien et al. published on 4 July 2019, an additional affiliation has been added for Anders Koch: Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. This correction was made on 17 July 2019 upon request of the authors.For the article ‘


In the article titled “Herpesvirus BACs: Past, Present, and Future” , there w


Tao Sun appeared incorrectly and should have been “Department of Pain Management, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.”In the article, “Continuous radiofrequency thermocoagulation under CT-guidance for glossopharyngeal neuralgia: Two case reports”,


I read the study conducted by Jill Flo and colleagues published in the January 2018 issue of nursing open (Flo, Landmark, Hatlevik, & Fagerström, The author reports no conflicts of interest.


Azzopardi PS, Hearps SJC, Francis KL, et al. Progress in adolescent health and wellbeing: tracking 12 headline indicators for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016. Lancet 393: 1101–18—2019; In figure 3 of this Article, under the Social determinants heading, the text should have read “Adolescent livebirths* per 1000 population”. This correction has been made to the online version as of March 21, 2019.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-019-12680-x, published online 16 October 2019.Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliations.Affiliation 4 incorrectly read ‘Institut Pasteur, Departments of Immunology and Genomes and Genetics, Paris, France’. The correct affiliation 4 should read as ‘Institut Pasteur, Genome Integrity, Immunity and Cancer Unit, Equipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Department of Immunology, Department of Genomes and Genetics, Paris, France’.This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


The affiliation for the fifth author is incorrect. Jan Klecka is not affiliated with #1 but with #3: Czech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre, Institute of Entomology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.


In the original article, we neglected to include the funder “Chinese National Natural Fund grant” (No. 81671369), to XC.An author name was also mistakenly incorrectly spelled as “Bei Hu.” The correct spelling is “Pei Hu.”Additionally, there was an error regarding the affiliation for Ying Zhou. As well as having affiliation “Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China,” she should also have “Clinical Pharmacology Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.”Lastly, Xia Chen, Yuguang Huang, Nuoer Sang, and Kaicheng Song were not included as authors in the published article. They have all contributed significantly to this manuscript by organizing the clinical trial, which we carelessly overlooked.Author Contributions Statement appears below.The corrected “YZ wrote the manuscript. PH, XC, and JJ designed the research. YZ, PH, HW, and JJ performed the research. XC, YH, NS, and KS organized the clinical trial. YZ and JW analyzed the data.”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.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-20866-4, published online 05 February 2018Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 1, which was incorrectly given as ‘Cardiovascular Diseases Research Group, Department of Cardiology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain’. The correct affiliation is listed below:Cardiovascular Diseases Research Group, Department of Cardiology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament de Medicina, Barcelona, Spain.This error has now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article and in the accompanying Supplementary Figures file.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-46497-x, published online 12 July 2019Correction to: In the original version of this Article, Eduard Batlle was incorrectly affiliated with ‘Colorectal Cancer Laboratory, Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Baldiri Reixac 10-12, Barcelona, 08028, Spain’. In addition, two affiliations for Eduard Batlle were omitted. The correct affiliations are listed below:Institute for Research in Biomedicine (IRB Barcelona), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), Baldiri Reixac 10-12, Barcelona 08028, SpainCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Barcelona, SpainICREA, Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, SpainThis error has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


In the article titled “The STARTEC Decision Support Tool for Better Tradeoffs between Food Safety, Quality, Nutrition, and Costs in Production of Advanced Ready-to-Eat Foods” , the nam


Samantha J. Lange, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.In the report “Update: Characteristics of Patients in a National Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use–Associated Lung Injuries — United States, October 2019,” on page 989, the list of contributors on the Lung Injury Response Epidemiology/Surveillance Task Force should have included


Also, Zhaojuan Er's affiliation should be “Department of Rehabilitation, Tianjin Baodi Hospital, Baodi Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 301800, China.”In the article, “Clinical application of auricular point sticking in perioperative hemostasis for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures of the femur”,


In the Statistical Analysis subsection of Methods, the second paragraph’s first sentence should read, “We used SEER-Medicare data to code sociodemographic characteristics , county-level characteristics , and clinical characteristics  for each patient.” The caption for Figure 1 should read, “Log-rank test comparing curves, P = .02 for overall survival and P = .001 for renal cell carcinoma–specific survival. n* indicates a cell size of less than 11, which is not reported per the National Cancer Institute data use agreement; NTT, nontargeted therapy; and TT, targeted therapy.” In the Limitations subsection of the Discussion, the text following the fifth sentence should read, “In addition, claims data may have variable accuracy for some clinical covariates we examined, such as metastatic site.54 Finally, rather than analyzing…”; the following has been included as reference 54: “National Cancer Institute. Measures that are limited or not available in the data. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/considerations/measures.html. Accessed June 6, 2019.” In Additional Contributions, the following should have been included: “This study used the linked SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Information Management Services (IMS), Inc; and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database.” This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Comparative Survival Associated With Use of Targeted vs Nontargeted Therapy in Medicare Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma,”


The affiliation for the fifth author is incorrect. Roberto Codella is not affiliated with #4–8 but with #4 and #8: School of Exercise Sciences, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy and Metabolism Research Center, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy.


Transl Med UniSa. 2018 Mar 31;17:25–33, reports a mistake in the affiliation list. The correct affiliation for dott Albino Carrizzo is: IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli (IS), 86077, Italy and for prof Vecchione is Department of Medicine and Surgery, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi (SA), Italy, and IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli (IS), 86077, Italy.The manuscript “siRNA Delivery for Control of Cyclin D1 and E2F1 Expression in Crohn’s Disease” published in


An additional affiliation is missing for the second author. William Otero Regino is also affiliated with Gastroenterology unit, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.


In the article titled “Rapid, Validated UPLC-MS/MS Method for Determination of Glibenclamide in Rat Plasma” , an ackn“Authors thank the Research Center, College of Pharmacy, and Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University for funding this research project.”


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-26003-5, published online 14 May 2018Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 1, which was incorrectly given as ‘Department of Ultrasound, Zhejing Provincial People’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China’. The correct affiliation is listed below:Department of Ultrasound, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Hangzhou, ChinaThis error has now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article, and in the accompanying Supplementary information.


In the original article, we neglected to include the funder “Scientific Research Project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Heilong Jiang Province, 2018415” to “Huijie Jiang.”Additionally, in the published article, there was an error in affiliations 2 and 3. Instead of affiliation 2, “Department of Radiology, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China,” it should be “Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China,” and instead of affiliation 3, “Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital, Harbin, China,” it should be “Department of Radiology, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.”In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation for Jun Zhang. He should have the affiliation 4 “Department of Rehabilitation and Pharmacy, Heilongjiang Province Land Reclamation Headquarters General Hospital, Harbin, 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.


The original version of this article was published open access. Unfortunately, due to a technical issue, the copyright holder name in the online version (HTML and XML) is incorrectly published as “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018”. Instead, it should be “The Author(s) 2018”.The original article has been corrected.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation “1.” Instead of “Shandong Academy of Clinical Medicine, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China,” it should be “Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 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.


Zeshan Chisty, CDC; all staff members from participating health care facilities in New York City.”In the report “Notes from the Field: Interventions to Reduce Measles Virus Exposures in Outpatient Health Care Facilities — New York City, 2018,” on page 791, the Acknowledgments should have read “L. Hannah Gould, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Mona Marin, Jennifer Wright,


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation “1” and “2.” “Beni-Suef” was incorrectly written as “Beni Suef.” In affiliation 1, instead of “Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Nahda University, Beni Suef, Egypt,” it should be “Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Nahda University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.” In affiliation 2, instead of “Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt,” it should be “Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.”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.


Euchresta horsfieldii (Fabaceae), a rare medicinal plant,” the author affiliations were listed in the incorrect order. They have been updated to reflect:In our paper, “Development of 10 single‐copy nuclear DNA markers for 1,2,3, Chao Feng1, Ming Kang1, and Hongwen Huang1,4Arief Priyadi1Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, People's Republic of China2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China3Bali Botanical Garden, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Tabanan 82191, Bali, Indonesia4Author for correspondence: huanghw@mail.scbg.ac.cnWe apologize for this error.


In the article titled “Synthesis, Morphology, and Hydrogen Absorption Properties of TiVMn and TiCrMn Nanoalloys with a FCC Structure,” , there w


Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that affiliation number 2 was incomplete. In this Correction, correct and incorrect affiliations are shown.Incorrect affiliation:Alliance for Research on North Africa (ARENA), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba City 305–8572, Japan.Correct affiliation:Alliance for Research on the Mediterranean and North Africa (ARENA), University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba City 305–8572, Japan.P ≤ 0.05) difference between treated cells and control” was deleted from Figs. 3 and 4 in the original article.In addition, caption “*Statistically significant (


In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliations for “Bodo Grimbacher.” As well as having affiliations 1, 3, 7 and 8, they should also have the “Institute of Immunity and Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, University College London, London, United Kingdom.”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.