Article title: The efficacy of post-operative drains for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Lerch, A. & Chau, A. M. T
Journal: British Journal of Neurosurgery
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2023.2254833
This article contains the following errors when the article was first published online:
In Figure 10, the numbers for Poorman 2014 were incorrectly standardised due to units not being homogenised and the P-value for the figure has been updated to “0.34” instead of “0.90”. This has also been amended in the abstract, the respective paragraphs and the discussion, each where the “P = 0.90” was stated has been changed to “P = 0.34”. This has now also been corrected in Figure 10 and the revised figure has been attached below.
In Figure 12, the numbers for Li 2019 were incorrectly standardised due to units not being homogenised and the P-value for the figure has been updated to “0.02” instead of “0.12”, which is technically statistically significant. This has also been amended in the abstract, the respective paragraphs and the discussion, each where “P = 0.12” has been changed to “P = 0.02”, and the associated preface “without significance” has been amended as follows in points 3a, b, c, and d. This has now also been corrected in Figure 12 and the revised figure has been attached below.
The following sentence “The significant association of dysphagia…influence the decision to place drains.” was incorrect in the “Abstract”. This has now been corrected as “The significant association of dysphagia and increased operative time with drains, and the non-significant trend towards increased EBL with drains, must be considered in the context in which procedures may influence the decision to place drains.”
The following sentence “No significant difference…drain group (OR = 0.34, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.77, P = 0.12).” was incorrect in sub-section “3.4.7. Median operative time”. This has now been corrected as “A significant difference was observed for the median operative time between the drain and no drains groups, however, a trend was observed for longer operating times in the drain group (OR = 0.16, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.31, P = 0.02).”
The following sentence “Across all included…no-drain groups (P = 0.31).” was incorrect in the “Discussion” section. This has now been corrected as “Across all included studies, this review did not find any significant differences in the primary outcome of POH between the drain and no-drain groups (P = 0.31).”
The following sentence “Non-significant trends were observed…confounders rather than causative links.” was incorrect in the “Conclusions” section. This has now been corrected as “Trends were observed towards increased operative time (significant) and EBL (non-significant) in the drain group, which could arguably be interpreted as baseline confounders rather than causative links.”
The following paragraph which starts with “This perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy against…” and ends with “…the drain cohort compared to no drains (P = 0.002).” under the “Discussion” section has been removed due to repetition of the paragraph.
The above errors have been corrected along with some minor changes and the article has been republished online.
Corrected Figure 10: 
Corrected Figure 12: 