Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99011-7, published online 30 September 2021
The original version of this Article contained an error in the Abstract and Introduction, where
“Gothic”
now reads:
“Gothic Arch Angle”
As the result, in the Abstract,
“The aim of the study was to validate (1) the intra- and interobserver reliability of a newly defined radiographic parameter named the Gothic, (2) the association between the GAA and previously existing measurements used to define severity of acetabular dysplasia, and (3) the correlation between radiographic measurements of acetabular dysplasia with MRI findings previously suggestive of hip instability.”
now reads:
“The aim of the study was to validate (1) the intra- and interobserver reliability of a newly defined radiographic parameter named the Gothic Arch Angle, (2) the association between the GAA and previously existing measurements used to define severity of acetabular dysplasia, and (3) the correlation between radiographic measurements of acetabular dysplasia with MRI findings previously suggestive of hip instability.”
In the Introduction,
“The aims of this study were (1) to validate the intra- and interobserver reliability of a newly defined radiographic parameter named the Gothic, (2) to validate the association between the GAA and previously existing measurements used to define severity of acetabular dysplasia, and (3) to validate the correlation between radiographic measurements of acetabular dysplasia with MRI findings previously suggestive of hip instability.”
now reads:
“The aims of this study were (1) to validate the intra- and interobserver reliability of a newly defined radiographic parameter named the Gothic Arch Angle, (2) to validate the association between the GAA and previously existing measurements used to define severity of acetabular dysplasia, and (3) to validate the correlation between radiographic measurements of acetabular dysplasia with MRI findings previously suggestive of hip instability.”
Additionally, in the Methods, under the subheading ‘Validation of the Gothic Arch Angle’,
“In addition to the GAA, the LCEA23, the acetabular index (AI)24, and the FEAR index15 (Fig. 2) were measured by two independent orthopaedic surgeons (X.X., Y.Y.) using the software mediCAD (mediCAD Hectec GmbH, Altdorf, Germany).”
now reads:
“In addition to the GAA, the LCEA23, the acetabular index (AI)24, and the FEAR index15 (Fig. 2) were measured by two independent orthopaedic surgeons (A.Z., J.L.) using the software mediCAD (mediCAD Hectec GmbH, Altdorf, Germany).”
And, in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Validation of the Gothic Arch Angle’,
“Two observers (X.X., Y.Y.) independently measured the GAA.”
now reads:
“Two observers (A.Z., J.L.) independently measured the GAA.”
The original Article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zimmerer, A., Löchel, J., Schoon, J. et al. Author Correction: Defining the Gothic Arch Angle (GAA) as a radiographic diagnostic tool for instability in hip dysplasia. Sci Rep 11, 20648 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00095-y
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00095-y
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
