Correction to: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04714-0

In the last paragraph of the subsession “Recruitment of the study population and clinical Evaluation” (Material and methods session) where it is read:

Finally, all participants were classified concerning their socioeconomic status (SES) using a five-category scale (from A—the highest, to D—the lowest) validated for use in our country, namely the ABA scale. The ABA scale is based on monthly financial incomes from each family. “A” represents the upper income socioeconomic class, “B” the upper middle class, “C” lower middle class, and “D” the lowest-income class [29] (http://www.aba.com.br/wp-content/uploads/content/7727632a373615b34f2a5726fcc5c9e2.pdf - content in portuguese).

It should be stated:

Finally, all participants were classified concerning their socioeconomic status (SES) using a five-category scale (from A—the highest, to E—the lowest) validated for use in our country, namely the ABA scale. The ABA scale is based on monthly financial incomes from each family. “A” represents the upper income socioeconomic class, “B” the upper middle class, “C” lower middle class, and “D” and “E” the lowest-income classes [29] (http://www.aba.com.br/wp-content/uploads/content/7727632a373615b34f2a5726fcc5c9e2.pdf - content in portuguese).

In the Results session, in the end of the “Clinical and demographic data” subsession, the following statement is missing:

No individuals were classified according to their SES under the “E” class.

In addition to Reference 29 [ABA. Critério de classificação sócio-econômica. 2007. http://www.aba.com.br/wp-content/uploads/content/7727632a373615b34f2a5726fcc5c9e2.pdf - content in portuguese). Assessed 7 Mar 2018.]:

- MATTAR, Fauze Najib. Análise crítica dos estudos de estratificação socioeconômicos da ABAABIPEME. Revista de Administração, v. 30, n.1, p. 57–74, jan/mar 1995.