Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Correction for Fujioka et al., Stroke 30 (5) 1043-1046.
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation

(Stroke. 1999;30:1737.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.


Corrections

Corrections



*    Introduction
up arrowTop
*Introduction
 
"Novel Brain Ischemic Change on MRI" by Fujioka et al (Stroke. 1999;30:1043–1046), in the "Materials and Methods" section, line 3 under "Surgical Procedure," should read as printed below. The publisher regrets the error.


Surgical Procedure
The right MCA of the rat was occluded, as previously described by a coauthor of this study.5,6 Briefly, rats were anesthetized with a gas mixture of 98% air and 2% halothane.

In Table 1 of "Replicability of SF-36 Summary Scores by the SF-12 in Stroke Patients," by Pickard et al (Stroke. 1999;30:1213–1217), the following error in data has been acknowledged by the authors.

The beta intercepts in Table 1 are incorrect. The MCS Beta Intercepts (95% CI) for each model (column 6) should read: Combined 0.4 (-1.7, 2.6), Self-Report 1.5 (-1.7, 4.7), Proxy -0.4 (-3.7, 2.9). The PCS Beta Intercepts (95% CI) for each model (column 11) should read: Combined -3.0 (-5.0, -1.0), Self-Report -1.5 (-4.2, 1.2), Proxy -4.8 (-7.5, -2.1).

The fundamental conclusions do not change. However, the authors would like to retract the following statements made in the paper:

"The intercept of the simple regression model for proxy respondents in Table 1 would also seem to indicate that the scaling of MCS-12 scores is not equivalent to the MCS-36 scores."

"There was no significant deviation from 0 for the intercepts on any of the regression models for PCS scores."


*    Footnotes
 
[Correction for Vol 30, Number 6, June 1999. Pages 1213–1217.]

[Correction for Vol 30, Number 5, May 1999. Page 1044.]





This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation