Correction: Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Prenatal Distribution of Misoprostol for Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Uganda.

Abstract

There are errors in the sixth and eighth sentences of the “Methods and Findings” section of the Abstract. The correct sentences are “In the base-case analysis, misoprostol distribution lowered the expected incidence of PPH by 1.2% (95% credibility interval (CrI): 0.55%, 1.95%), mortality by 0.08% (95% CrI: 0.04%, 0.13%) and DALYs by 0.02 (95% CrI: 0.01, 0.03).” and “ICERs were US$181 (95% CrI: 81, 443) per DALY averted from a governmental perspective, and US$64 (95% CrI: -84, 260) per DALY averted from a modified societal perspective.” There are errors in the third sentence of the “Misuse and potential changes in delivery pathway trajectory following misoprostol distribution” section of the Methods. The correct sentence is “In Uganda, the MamaMiso study found that 99.7% of women used misoprostol appropriately, and the 0.3% that took it after delivery show no adverse events [18].” There are errors in the first and fifth sentences of the “Cost-effectiveness analysis” subsection of the Results. The correct sentences are “In the base-case, the expected incidence of PPH was lower with prenatal misoprostol distribution (4.3% versus 5.5%; an absolute reduction of 1.2% and relative reduction of 28.7%).” and “In the incremental analysis, prenatal misoprostol distribution had an ICER of US$181 per DALY averted from a government perspective, and US$64 per DALY averted from a modified societal perspective.” There are errors in the fifth sentence of the “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis” section of the Results. The correct sentence is “The range on the ICERs were $81 to $441 per DALY averted from the government and $-84 to $260 per DALY averted from the societal perspective.” There are errors in Tables ​Tables44 and ​and5.5. Please see the corrected Tables ​Tables44 and ​and55 here. Table 4 Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per life saved and cost per DALYs averted). Table 5 Incremental costs, incremental outcomes and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios stratified by wealth quintile. There are errors in Figs ​Figs2,2, ​,3,3, ​,44 and ​and55 and S3 Fig. Please see the corrected Figs ​Figs2,2, ​,3,3, ​,44 and ​and55 and S3 Fig here. Fig 2 Tornado diagram of univariate sensitivity analysis. Fig 3 Tornado diagram of univariate sensitivity analysis. Fig 4 Incremental cost-effectiveness scatter plot showing the distribution of 10,000 incremental cost and DALY averted pairs. Fig 5 Cost effectiveness acceptability curve obtained from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.