TY - JOUR
T1 - Erratum
T2 - Early antibiotic administration is associated with a reduced infection risk when combined with primary wound closure in patients with open tibia fractures (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001507)
AU - Zuelzer, David A.
AU - Hayes, Christopher B.
AU - Hautala, Gavin S.
AU - Akbar, Adam
AU - Mayer, Ryan R.
AU - Jacobs, Cale A.
AU - Wright, Raymond D.
AU - Moghadamian, Eric S.
AU - Matuszewski, Paul E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2023/3/1
Y1 - 2023/3/1
N2 - In the study, “Early Antibiotic Administration Is Associated With a Reduced Infection Risk When Combined With Primary Wound Closure in Patients With Open Tibia Fractures,” there is one error in the Abstract and one clarification that needs to be made within the Patients and Methods section. In the Abstract, we incorrectly indicated that “One hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis.” There were, in fact, 142 patients with 143 fractures, as correctly identified in the Patients and Methods section. Additionally, in the Patients and Methods section, our description of the iterative process that was employed to identify patients to be included in the analysis was unclear. We originally identified 142 patients (143 fractures) that met our initial inclusion and exclusion criteria. From this initial sample, we further excluded an additional 15 patients (16 fractures) that did not meet the minimum follow-up of 6 weeks to be included in the analyses (n = 127). The authors apologize for these errors.
AB - In the study, “Early Antibiotic Administration Is Associated With a Reduced Infection Risk When Combined With Primary Wound Closure in Patients With Open Tibia Fractures,” there is one error in the Abstract and one clarification that needs to be made within the Patients and Methods section. In the Abstract, we incorrectly indicated that “One hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis.” There were, in fact, 142 patients with 143 fractures, as correctly identified in the Patients and Methods section. Additionally, in the Patients and Methods section, our description of the iterative process that was employed to identify patients to be included in the analysis was unclear. We originally identified 142 patients (143 fractures) that met our initial inclusion and exclusion criteria. From this initial sample, we further excluded an additional 15 patients (16 fractures) that did not meet the minimum follow-up of 6 weeks to be included in the analyses (n = 127). The authors apologize for these errors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148479733&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85148479733&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002583
DO - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002583
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 36752764
AN - SCOPUS:85148479733
SN - 0009-921X
VL - 481
SP - 627
JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
IS - 3
ER -