Following publication of our recent article [1], we noticed the following errors:
In the Results section, under the heading 'Confirmation of anti-Rib-P reactivity in 51 samples by other methods', in the first sentence, 39.6% should be 41.2%.
In the same section, the following sentence:
The agreement between the individual methods and the IB was found at 0.57 (P < 0.0001) (ELISA), 0.71 (P < 0.0001), and 0.96 (P < 0.0001) according to the kappa method.
Should read:
The agreement between the individual methods and the IB was found at 0.57 (P < 0.0001) (ELISA), 0.71 (P < 0.0001) (LIA), and 0.96 (P < 0.0001) (EliA(R)) according to the kappa method.
In the results section, under the heading 'Anti-Rib-P reactivity in a systemic lupus erythematosus cohort and controls', in the second sentence, 28% should be 29%.
References
Mahler M, Ngo JT, Schulte-Pelkum J, Luettich T, Fritzler MJ: Limited reliability of the indirect immunofluorescence technique for the detection of anti-Rib-P antibodies. Arthritis Res Ther. 2008, 10: R131-10.1186/ar2548.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1186/ar2548
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mahler, M., Ngo, J.T., Schulte-Pelkum, J. et al. Erratum to: Limited reliability of the indirect immunofluorescence technique for the detection of anti-Rib-P antibodies. Arthritis Res Ther 11, 402 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/ar2599
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/ar2599