{"title":"更正 \"内窥镜超声引导下组织采集≤2 厘米小灶性肝脏病变的结果\"","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/deo2.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Takano Y, Tamai N, Yamawaki M <i>et al.</i> The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm. <i>DEN Open</i> 2025; <b>5</b>: e70031.</p><p>1. In the abstract section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and 2.3% in the >2 cm group).” was incorrect.</p><p>This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were <span>96.5%</span>, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and <span>97.2%</span>, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and <span>2.5%</span> in the >2 cm group). ” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)</p><p>2. In the result outcomes of the EUS-TA section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (2.3%) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” was incorrect</p><p>This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were <span>96.5%</span>, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and <span>97.2%</span>, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (<span>2.5%</span>) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)</p><p>3. The numbers in Table 3 are incorrect.\n\n </p><p>The correct table is listed below: Please correct the underlined numbers.\n\n </p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70039","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction to “The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm”\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/deo2.70039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Takano Y, Tamai N, Yamawaki M <i>et al.</i> The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm. <i>DEN Open</i> 2025; <b>5</b>: e70031.</p><p>1. In the abstract section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and 2.3% in the >2 cm group).” was incorrect.</p><p>This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were <span>96.5%</span>, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and <span>97.2%</span>, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and <span>2.5%</span> in the >2 cm group). ” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)</p><p>2. In the result outcomes of the EUS-TA section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (2.3%) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” was incorrect</p><p>This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were <span>96.5%</span>, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and <span>97.2%</span>, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (<span>2.5%</span>) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)</p><p>3. The numbers in Table 3 are incorrect.\\n\\n </p><p>The correct table is listed below: Please correct the underlined numbers.\\n\\n </p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DEN open\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70039\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DEN open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Takano Y, Tamai N, Yamawaki M 等人. 内窥镜超声引导下组织采集≤2 厘米肝脏小灶病变的效果。DEN Open 2025; 5: e70031.1。在摘要部分，接下来的"≤2 cm组的敏感性、特异性和准确率分别为96.8%、100%和96.8%，>2 cm组的敏感性、特异性和准确率分别为97.4%、100%和97.4%，组间无显著差异。组间不良反应无差异（≤2 厘米组为 0%，>2 厘米组为 2.3%）："≤2厘米组的灵敏度、特异性和准确率分别为96.5%、100%和96.8%，>2厘米组的灵敏度、特异性和准确率分别为97.2%、100%和97.4%，组间无显著差异。各组之间的不良反应无差异（≤2 厘米组为 0%，>2 厘米组为 2.5%）。"(请更正下划线数字。)2.在EUS-TA的结果结果部分，接下来的 "EUS-TA的敏感性、特异性和准确率在≤2 cm组分别为96.8%、100%和96.8%，在>2 cm组分别为97.4%、100%和97.4%，两个尺寸组之间无显著差异。此外，两组的不良反应也无差异。2厘米组有两例（2.3%）轻微腹痛，但疼痛可自行缓解："EUS-TA的敏感性、特异性和准确率在≤2厘米组分别为96.5%、100%和96.8%，在>2厘米组分别为97.2%、100%和97.4%，两个尺寸组之间无显著差异。此外，两组在不良反应方面也无差异。2厘米组有两例（2.5%）轻微腹痛，但疼痛可自行缓解。(表 3 中的数字不正确。 正确的表格如下：请更正下划线数字。 我们对此错误深表歉意。
Correction to “The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm”
Takano Y, Tamai N, Yamawaki M et al. The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small focal liver lesions measuring ≤2 cm. DEN Open 2025; 5: e70031.
1. In the abstract section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and 2.3% in the >2 cm group).” was incorrect.
This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were 96.5%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.2%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the groups. There was no difference in adverse events between the groups (0% in the ≤2 cm group and 2.5% in the >2 cm group). ” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)
2. In the result outcomes of the EUS-TA section, the next “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were 96.8%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (2.3%) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” was incorrect
This should have read: “The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-TA were 96.5%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively, in the ≤2 cm group and 97.2%, 100%, and 97.4%, respectively, in the >2 cm group, with no significant differences between the two size groups. Moreover, there was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. There were two cases (2.5%) of mild abdominal pain in the >2 cm group, but the pain resolved spontaneously.” (Please correct the underlined numbers.)
3. The numbers in Table 3 are incorrect.
The correct table is listed below: Please correct the underlined numbers.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
