Abstract
The original version of this article unfortunately contains mistakes. The second sentence in the section "Results", under the heading "Study Design" was incorrect. It should read as: Two studies [24, 29] used a prospective cohort study design with a JAMA rating of 2. Four studies [17, 25, 27, 34] completed retrospective studies earning a JAMA score of 3. Four studies [26, 28, 30, 33] earned a JAMA quality rating score of 4 and used the following designs: case series [26, 28, 33], and pilot study [30]. In Table1, "Study Population (n)" and "Design (JAMA quality rating)" values were incorrect for Shinn et al. (2013) [24]. The correct information is given here. HNC (n = 109) Prospective Cohort (2).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
