Correction: Goodman et al. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness in Six High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1543
1
Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ 07065, USA
2
Global Medical and Scientific Affairs, MSD Sharp and Dohme GmbH, 81673 Munich, Germany
3
OPEN Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Present affiliation: Milken Institute School of Public Health the George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
‡
Present affiliation: Evidera, Inc., Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Vaccines 2023, 11(7), 1227; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071227
Submission received: 16 June 2023
/
Accepted: 27 June 2023
/
Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection HPV-Vaccines)
The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]. In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. A few of the references were missed from the legend for Figure 2B,C. The corrected Figure 2 appears below.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Goodman, E.; Reuschenbach, M.; Kaminski, A.; Ronnebaum, S. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness in Six High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 2.
4vHPV vaccine effectiveness in patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Panel (A) shows the tumor response within an individual patient defined as: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; and RD, recurrent disease. Three studies defined PR as a >50% increase in the interval between surgical procedures [32,49,50]; one study as a >50% increase in the interval between surgical procedures or persistent papillomas that were not growing and did not require surgical interventions for >12 months [34]; one study as any increase in the time to recurrence [41]; and one study as >12 months with no appreciable growth of papillomas [51]. Three studies defined the ‘PR or RD’ category as any recurrence [37–39]. No definitions were provided in the remaining two studies [17,26]. These are descriptive, within person responses, so vaccine effectiveness is not calculated. Panel (B) shows the increase in the mean intersurgical interval. The symbol * indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05. Panel (C) shows the decrease in the mean number of surgeries per month. The symbol * indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05. For all panels, data from the Rosenberg 2019 Danish cohort were collected by the study authors while data from the Romanian cohort were new, never reported data from a prior published study [52].
Figure 2.
4vHPV vaccine effectiveness in patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Panel (A) shows the tumor response within an individual patient defined as: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; and RD, recurrent disease. Three studies defined PR as a >50% increase in the interval between surgical procedures [32,49,50]; one study as a >50% increase in the interval between surgical procedures or persistent papillomas that were not growing and did not require surgical interventions for >12 months [34]; one study as any increase in the time to recurrence [41]; and one study as >12 months with no appreciable growth of papillomas [51]. Three studies defined the ‘PR or RD’ category as any recurrence [37–39]. No definitions were provided in the remaining two studies [17,26]. These are descriptive, within person responses, so vaccine effectiveness is not calculated. Panel (B) shows the increase in the mean intersurgical interval. The symbol * indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05. Panel (C) shows the decrease in the mean number of surgeries per month. The symbol * indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05. For all panels, data from the Rosenberg 2019 Danish cohort were collected by the study authors while data from the Romanian cohort were new, never reported data from a prior published study [52].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Goodman, E.; Reuschenbach, M.; Kaminski, A.; Ronnebaum, S. Correction: Goodman et al. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness in Six High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1543. Vaccines 2023, 11, 1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071227
AMA Style
Goodman E, Reuschenbach M, Kaminski A, Ronnebaum S. Correction: Goodman et al. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness in Six High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1543. Vaccines. 2023; 11(7):1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071227
Chicago/Turabian StyleGoodman, Elizabeth, Miriam Reuschenbach, Allysen Kaminski, and Sarah Ronnebaum. 2023. "Correction: Goodman et al. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness in Six High-Risk Populations: A Systematic Literature Review. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1543" Vaccines 11, no. 7: 1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071227
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
