Archived Comments for:
Using linked routinely collected health data to describe prostate cancer treatment in New South Wales, Australia: a validation study
The authors have discovered a minor error in this paper. In the Results section, second paragraph, the third sentence needs to be corrected as follows.
“Sensitivity of the MBS claims data was highest for men who had private health insurance (89% vs 28% for those with no private health insurance, p < 0.0001) and for those living in major cities (80% vs 55% for those living in outer regional areas, p < 0.0001).”
In the published version, the results for private health insurance and no health insurance are reversed.
Minor correction to be noted
1 August 2014
Dear Editors
The authors have discovered a minor error in this paper. In the Results section, second paragraph, the third sentence needs to be corrected as follows.
“Sensitivity of the MBS claims data was highest for men who had private health insurance (89% vs 28% for those with no private health insurance, p < 0.0001) and for those living in major cities (80% vs 55% for those living in outer regional areas, p < 0.0001).”
In the published version, the results for private health insurance and no health insurance are reversed.
No other part of the article is affected.
Kind regards
David Goldsbury on behalf of the authors
Competing interests
None.