Erratum to: Devoe DJ, Peterson A, Addington J. Negative Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Erratum to: Devoe DJ, Peterson A, Addington J. Negative Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of... Schizophrenia Bulletin vol. 44 no. 2 pp. 463, 2018 doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx193 ERRATUM Erratum to: Devoe DJ, Peterson A, Addington J. Negative any negative symptom treatment. Many studies had small Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: samples and the majority were not designed to target neg- A  Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. ative symptoms.” Schizophr Bull. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx139 Page  9, line 18/19: Delete “…demonstrated small to The authors regret that, although the text is clear that large effect sizes for negative symptom reduction com- neither efficacy nor effectiveness was statistically con- pared to ….” and replace with: “…ranked ahead of….”. firmed for any of the examined treatments, the abstract Page  9: Delete the last sentence of the NMDAR and text contained a mis-statement regarding effective- Modulators section line 33 and replace with: “Lastly, ness when rank ordering treatments according to the net- SUCRA plots of the absolute effects and rank test among work analysis. the 11 treatments indicated that NMDAR modulators Page  1: In the Abstract under Results, Add “The null ranked higher than the other 10 treatments, but this is hypothesis was not rejected for any of the 11 treatments” in the context of no statistically supported efficacy com- between the first sentence “Of 3,027…. participants.” pared to placebo.” and the second sentence “Only N-methyl-D-aspartate- Page  13: In the Conclusions of the main text the first receptor (NMDAR) modulators trended towards a signifi- sentence should be deleted and replaced with the follow- cant reduction in negative symptoms compared to placebo ing: “In conclusion, this review contained information on (SMD,-0.54, 95%CI, -1.09 to 0.02; I  = 0%, P = 0.06).” clinical trials of 11 treatment approaches. Support for ef- Page 1: In the Conclusion of the Abstract current word- ficacy or effectiveness did not reach statistical significance ing should be deleted and the conclusions should now for any of the treatments. Many of the relevant studies read: “Efficacy and effectiveness were not confirmed for had small samples…”. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/44/2/463/4860201 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 March 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Schizophrenia Bulletin Oxford University Press

Erratum to: Devoe DJ, Peterson A, Addington J. Negative Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Schizophrenia Bulletin , Volume 44 (2) – Mar 1, 2018
Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/ou_press/erratum-to-devoe-dj-peterson-a-addington-j-negative-symptom-LxsloyAem0
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0586-7614
eISSN
1745-1701
D.O.I.
10.1093/schbul/sbx193
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Schizophrenia Bulletin vol. 44 no. 2 pp. 463, 2018 doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx193 ERRATUM Erratum to: Devoe DJ, Peterson A, Addington J. Negative any negative symptom treatment. Many studies had small Symptom Interventions in Youth at Risk of Psychosis: samples and the majority were not designed to target neg- A  Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. ative symptoms.” Schizophr Bull. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx139 Page  9, line 18/19: Delete “…demonstrated small to The authors regret that, although the text is clear that large effect sizes for negative symptom reduction com- neither efficacy nor effectiveness was statistically con- pared to ….” and replace with: “…ranked ahead of….”. firmed for any of the examined treatments, the abstract Page  9: Delete the last sentence of the NMDAR and text contained a mis-statement regarding effective- Modulators section line 33 and replace with: “Lastly, ness when rank ordering treatments according to the net- SUCRA plots of the absolute effects and rank test among work analysis. the 11 treatments indicated that NMDAR modulators Page  1: In the Abstract under Results, Add “The null ranked higher than the other 10 treatments, but this is hypothesis was not rejected for any of the 11 treatments” in the context of no statistically supported efficacy com- between the first sentence “Of 3,027…. participants.” pared to placebo.” and the second sentence “Only N-methyl-D-aspartate- Page  13: In the Conclusions of the main text the first receptor (NMDAR) modulators trended towards a signifi- sentence should be deleted and replaced with the follow- cant reduction in negative symptoms compared to placebo ing: “In conclusion, this review contained information on (SMD,-0.54, 95%CI, -1.09 to 0.02; I  = 0%, P = 0.06).” clinical trials of 11 treatment approaches. Support for ef- Page 1: In the Conclusion of the Abstract current word- ficacy or effectiveness did not reach statistical significance ing should be deleted and the conclusions should now for any of the treatments. Many of the relevant studies read: “Efficacy and effectiveness were not confirmed for had small samples…”. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstract/44/2/463/4860201 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 March 2018

Journal

Schizophrenia BulletinOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off