Erratum. Endoscopic versus open microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Free access

TO THE READERSHIP: Errors appeared in the article by Zagzoog et al. (Zagzoog N, Attar A, Takroni R, et al: Endoscopic versus open microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. J Neurosurg [epub ahead of print December 7, 2018; DOI: 10.3171/2018.6.JNS172690]).

In Fig. 1, “Records excluded due to sample size less than 30 (n = 125)” should have stated “less than 10 (n = 124),” and “Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 714)” should have stated “(n = 715).”

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart of the literature search and study selection.

In the article, the first paragraph under Results, “Of these 839 articles, two independent reviewers eliminated 125 with a sample size smaller than 10 and another 692 articles not relevant to our analysis” should have stated “two independent reviewers eliminated 124.”

The corrected figure is shown here.

The article has been corrected online as of March 22, 2019.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Article Information

Contributor Notes

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online March 22, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.JNS172690a.
Figures
  • View in gallery

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart of the literature search and study selection.

TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 61 61 61
PDF Downloads 45 45 45
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar