Erratum to: Experience of 11 years use of cidofovir in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis

Abstract

There is a discrepancy in the figures and the related captions in the online published article. The corrected figures and captions are presented below.

A Systematic Review: Outcomes in Adult Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Treated with Intralesional Cidofovir or Bevacizumab

“…Figure 1 illustrates the review process and reasons for exclusion. The 16 included articles are displayed in Table 1 , 4,5,7,8,15,16,20-29 which includes 14 studies evaluating cidofovir 4,5,7,8,20-29 and 2 studies evaluating bevacizumab (from the same authorship group). 15,16 There were no studies that evaluated both.…”

“…Six were prospective, 4,15,22,25-27 including 1 randomized controlled trial, 25 and 10 were retrospective. * Five studies 5,22-25 included consecutive patients; the others were unclear. Risk of bias 18 —including evaluation of selection, comparability, and outcome assessment—rated studies 4 to 7 stars (out of 9).…”

“…Of 16 studies, 12 (75%) had a score of 4 to 5, † consistent with poor quality, while 3 studies were of fair quality, with a score of 6 to 7. 15,24,27…”

“…Ten studies involved only adult patients, 7,15,16,20-23,26,27,29 whereas 6 studies had a mix of pediatric and adult patients. 4,5,8,24,25,28 In total, 231 adult patients were analyzed: 201 from cidofovir studies and 30 from bevacizumab studies. There were 162 men and 59 women; the sexes of the remaining patients were not specified.…”

“…The severity of RRP ranged among the studies, with 6 studies selecting for patients who required frequent interventions or had severe disease leading to airway compromise. 4,15,20,22,24,25…”