TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Rationale and design of the HOME trial
T2 - A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system” [Contemp. Clin. Trials 64 (2018) 77–87](S1551714417304536)(10.1016/j.cct.2017.11.004)
AU - Winer, Rachel L.
AU - Tiro, Jasmin A.
AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.
AU - Thayer, Chris
AU - Beatty, Tara
AU - Lin, John
AU - Gao, Hongyuan
AU - Kimbel, Kilian
AU - Buist, Diana S.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2019/9
Y1 - 2019/9
N2 - In the abstract, we erroneously indicated that our definition of cervical cancer under-screening was “≥3.4 years since last Pap,” instead of >3.4 years since last Pap. We also reported incorrect numbers of women who were invited to complete and completed interviews and surveys. In Section 2.7, we indicated that interview invitations were mailed to 58 HPV positive women who completed recommended follow-up and 16 HPV positive women who did not complete follow-up; the correct numbers are 62 invitations mailed to women who completed follow-up and 13 women who did not. In Section 2.7 and Fig. 1 we further reported 34 completed interviews in women who completed follow-up and 12 in women who did not; the correct numbers are 38 interviews in women who completed follow-up and in women 8 who did not. In Section 2.8, we indicated that survey invitations were mailed to 1055 HPV kit non-returners; the correct number is 1083. In Section 2.8 and Fig. 1, we indicated that 118 surveys were received from kit returners and 116 from kit non-returners; the correct numbers are 116 from kit returners and 119 from non-returners (235 total). We regret any confusion caused by these errors.
AB - In the abstract, we erroneously indicated that our definition of cervical cancer under-screening was “≥3.4 years since last Pap,” instead of >3.4 years since last Pap. We also reported incorrect numbers of women who were invited to complete and completed interviews and surveys. In Section 2.7, we indicated that interview invitations were mailed to 58 HPV positive women who completed recommended follow-up and 16 HPV positive women who did not complete follow-up; the correct numbers are 62 invitations mailed to women who completed follow-up and 13 women who did not. In Section 2.7 and Fig. 1 we further reported 34 completed interviews in women who completed follow-up and 12 in women who did not; the correct numbers are 38 interviews in women who completed follow-up and in women 8 who did not. In Section 2.8, we indicated that survey invitations were mailed to 1055 HPV kit non-returners; the correct number is 1083. In Section 2.8 and Fig. 1, we indicated that 118 surveys were received from kit returners and 116 from kit non-returners; the correct numbers are 116 from kit returners and 119 from non-returners (235 total). We regret any confusion caused by these errors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068795479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068795479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2019.07.003
DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2019.07.003
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 31307906
AN - SCOPUS:85068795479
SN - 1551-7144
VL - 84
JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials
JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials
M1 - 105811
ER -