|
Abstract
|
Erratum: "What do we know about the association between firearm legislation and firearm-related injuries?" (epidemiologic reviews (2016) 38 1 (140-157))
The authors of the article “What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” (1) wish to correct the following errors. The changes do not change the main results or conclusions described in the paper.
The following errors appeared in the figures.
In Figure 2, the upper confidence limit for Duggan, 2001, should have been positive. The correct values are −6.39 (−13.37, 0.59).
In Figure 4, percent change and 95% confidence interval values were missing for Chapman, 2006. The correct values are −4.60 (−7.80, −1.30).
In Figure 4, the confidence limits for Reisch, 2003, were reversed. The correct values are −26.77 (−31.11, −22.12).
In Figure 4, the lower confidence limit for Webster, 2004, should have been negative. The correct values are 0.00 (−13.00, 16.00).
In Figure 4, the lower confidence limit for Rosengart, 2005, should have been negative. The correct values are 0.00 (−6.00, 6.00).
The following errors appeared in the reference list:
Reference 10, though cited in the paper, is missing from the reference list. The correct reference is: Wellford C, Pepper J, Petrie C, eds. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
In reference 20, the issue number has been changed from 2 to S2.
The following errors appeared in Web Table 1:
1. Mustard, 2001, Results column: The word “not” was removed in the first line, which originally read “SI laws were not associated….” The third P value was changed from >0.05 to <0.05.
2. Plassman and Tideman, 2001, Results column: The last sentence was changed from “At the state level, 3 states showed increments and 1 state showed reductions in homicide rates associated with SI laws” to “At the state level, 3 states showed reductions and 1 state showed an increase in homicide rates associated with SI laws.”
3. Duwe, 2002, Association measure column: The entry was changed from “change in log of homicide rates” to “incidence rate ratio.” Results column: The second P value was changed from <0.05 to >0.05.
4. Rubin and Dezhbakhsh, 2003, Association measure column: The entry originally read “change in log of homicide rates”; “log of” has been deleted.
5. Martin and Legault, 2005, Results column: The percent symbol after −0.0554 was deleted.
6. Ayres and Donohue, 2003, Results column: The fourth β coefficient was changed from 7.7 to 7.1.
7. Moody and Marvell, 2008, Results column: The last 2 sentences were changed from “At the state level, (dummy models) 8 states showed significant reductions, and 4 states increments in homicide rates (at a 90% confidence level). In trend models, 7 states showed reductions and 8 states increments in homicides (90% confidence)” to “At the state level, (trend models) 8 states showed significant reductions, and 4 states increments in homicide rates (at a 90% confidence level). In dummy models, 3 states showed reductions and 8 states increments in homicides (90% confidence).”
8. Gius, 2014, Results column: The last β coefficient is now negative (−0.29).
9. Aneja et al., 2014, Results column: The data period was changed from 1993–2000 to 1977–2000.
10. McClellan and Tekin, 2012, Results column: The end of the last sentence was changed from “…and with 13% in White males homicides” to “…and with 12.3% reduction in White males homicides.”
11. Zeoli and Webster, 2010, Results column: In the last line, the P value was changed from <0.05 to >0.05.
12. Webster et al., 2000, Results column: The percentage for Florida was changed from 55% to 51%.
13. Desimone et al., 2013, Association measure column: The entry was changed from “rate ratio of firearms deaths” to “rate ratio of firearms injuries.”
14. O'Carroll et al., 1991, Results column: The first sentence was changed from “The law was not associated with variations in the number of monthly firearm indoor homicides (p>0.05) but was associated with an increment in homicides committed outside (22% increment, p>0.05)” to “The law was not associated with variations in the number of monthly firearm outdoor homicides (p>0.05) but was associated with an increment in homicides committed inside (22% increment, p<0.05).”
15. Carrington, 1999, Results column: The second P value was changed from >0.05 to <0.05.
16. Caron et al., 2008, Results column: The first 2 sentences were changed from “Among males the bill was not associated with a short-term (beta= 0.28; p=0.45) or long-term (beta= −0.040; p=0.70) significant reduction in firearm suicide rates. Similar results were observed for females” to “The bill was not associated with a short-term (beta= 0.28; p=0.45) or long-term (beta= −0.040; p=0.70) significant reduction in firearm suicide rates. Similar results were observed by gender.”
17. Baker and McPhedran, 2007, Results column: The last P value was changed from <0.02 to 0.02.
18. McPhedran and Baker, 2012, Unit of analysis/sample size/years column: The second range of years was changed from “1915–2004” to “1979–2007,” and the second follow-up length was changed from “90 years” to “29 years.” Association measure column: The phrase “and homicides” was deleted from the end of the entry.
19. Kapusta et al., 1997, Results column: The words “homicide” and “suicide” were reversed.
20. Kwon et al., 1997, Association measure column: The entry was changed from “difference in rate of homicides” to “difference in rate of firearm deaths.”
21. Kwon et al., 2005, Association measure column: The entry was changed from “difference in rate of homicides” to “difference in rate of firearm deaths.”
22. Safavi et al., 2014, Association measure column: The entry was changed from “difference in rates of homicides” to “difference in rates of injuries.”
23. Lester and Murrell, 1982, Association measure column: The phrase “and suicides” was added to the end. Results column: The phrase “firearms homicides” was changed to “firearms suicides.”
The article and the Web Material have been updated to reflect these changes. The authors and the Journal regret these errors
Language: en |