Correction to: Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2) (Systematic Reviews, (2023), 12, 1, (99), 10.1186/s13643-023-02269-3)

Abstract

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported a typo error in Table 6 wherein the headings ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ were interchanged. The correct table is given below. Incorrect Table 6: (Table presented.) Associations between presence of spin in the abstract and characteristics of the systematic review Cochrane 4 (40.0%) 6 (60.0%) 1 - - - EJO 18 (64.3%) 10 (35.7%) 0.37 0.08 1.63 0.19 AJODO 14 (70.0%) 6 (30.0%) 0.29 0.06 1.39 0.12 AO 14 (60.9%) 9 (39.1%) 0.43 0.09 1.95 0.27 KJO 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 1.33 0.09 20.11 0.84 O&C 7 (50.0%) 7 (50.0%) 0.67 0.13 3.45 0.63 1.03 0.9 1.16 0.7 2009 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2010 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 2011 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 2012 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2013 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 2014 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 2015 9 (75.0%) 3 (25.0%) 2016 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 2017 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 2018 6 (46.2%) 7 (53.8%) 2019 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2020 7 (58.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2021 5 (62.5%) 3 (37.5%) 0.93 0.71 1.21 0.59 2 3 (50.0%) 3 (50.0%) 3 7 (50.0%) 7 (50.0%) 4 16 (69.6%) 7 (30.4%) 5 15 (55.6%) 12 (44.4%) 6 8 (53.3%) 7 (46.7%) 7 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 8 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) Yes 32 (56.1%) 25 (43.9%) 0.74 0.32 1.68 0.47 No 26 (63.4%) 15 (36.6%) 1 - - - Not reported 26 (63.4%) 15 (36.6%) NA NA NA NA No 32 (56.1%) 25 (43.9%) NA NA NA NA Yes 23 (56.1%) 18 (43.9%) 0.8 0.35 1.81 0.6 No 35 (61.4%) 22 (38.6%) 1 - - - Type of orthodontic interventiona 1 41 (59.4%) 28 (40.6%) 1 - - - 2 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) NA NA NA NA 3 16 (57.1%) 12 (42.9%) 1.1 0.45 2.67 0.84 aType 1 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions to move teeth or change the jaw size or position for orthodontic purposes. Type 2 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions with additional surgical, pharmacological, or vibratory interventions. Type 3 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions to maintain or stabilize orthodontic results Correct Table 6: (Table presented.) Associations between presence of spin in the abstract and characteristics of the systematic review Cochrane 4 (40.0%) 6 (60.0%) 1 - - - EJO 18 (64.3%) 10 (35.7%) 0.37 0.08 1.63 0.19 AJODO 14 (70.0%) 6 (30.0%) 0.29 0.06 1.39 0.12 AO 14 (60.9%) 9 (39.1%) 0.43 0.09 1.95 0.27 KJO 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 1.33 0.09 20.11 0.84 O&C 7 (50.0%) 7 (50.0%) 0.67 0.13 3.45 0.63 1.03 0.9 1.16 0.7 2009 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2010 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 2011 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 2012 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2013 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 2014 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 2015 9 (75.0%) 3 (25.0%) 2016 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 2017 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 2018 6 (46.2%) 7 (53.8%) 2019 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2020 7 (58.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2021 5 (62.5%) 3 (37.5%) 0.93 0.71 1.21 0.59 2 3 (50.0%) 3 (50.0%) 3 7 (50.0%) 7 (50.0%) 4 16 (69.6%) 7 (30.4%) 5 15 (55.6%) 12 (44.4%) 6 8 (53.3%) 7 (46.7%) 7 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 8 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) Yes 32 (56.1%) 25 (43.9%) 0.74 0.32 1.68 0.47 No 26 (63.4%) 15 (36.6%) 1 - - - Not reported 26 (63.4%) 15 (36.6%) NA NA NA NA No 32 (56.1%) 25 (43.9%) NA NA NA NA Yes 23 (56.1%) 18 (43.9%) 0.8 0.35 1.81 0.6 No 35 (61.4%) 22 (38.6%) 1 - - - Type of orthodontic interventiona 1 41 (59.4%) 28 (40.6%) 1 - - - 2 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) NA NA NA NA 3 16 (57.1%) 12 (42.9%) 1.1 0.45 2.67 0.84 aType 1 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions to move teeth or change the jaw size or position for orthodontic purposes. Type 2 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions with additional surgical, pharmacological, or vibratory interventions. Type 3 orthodontic interventions: Orthodontic interventions to maintain or stabilize orthodontic results The original article has been corrected.