Menard M, Shah YS, Stroh IG, et al. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:389-399.
Page 389, Abstract, Results section, second sentence, the text “(66.1% vs 27.4%)” should read “(66.1% vs 33.9%)”.
Page 391, Results, Baseline Characteristics section, paragraph one, fifth and sixth sentences, the text “The median age at presentation was 52.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 21.0). Forty-two percent of patients were women and 66.1% were Caucasian” should read “The median age at presentation was 53.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 21.2). Forty-two percent of patients were women and 69.4% were Caucasian”.
Page 391, Results, Baseline Characteristics section, paragraph two, third sentence, the text “Before presentation 77.4% of patients had been treated with topical antibacterial medications, 22.6% were treated with topical corticosteroids either on a chronic basis, and 9.7% with topical antifungal medications” should read “Before presentation 77.4% of patients had been treated with topical antibacterial medications, and 9.7% with topical antifungal medications”.
Page 392, Table 1, Median age at presentation, years (SD; range) row, “52.9 (21.0; 0.9–91)” should read “53.3 (21.2; 0.9–91)”; Duration of symptoms prior to culture, days (SD; range) row, “15 (17.1; 0–69.9)” should read “22.8 (17.1; 0–69.9)”; History of LASIK, % (n/N) row, “4.8 (3/55)” should read “5.5 (3/55)”; Seen by outside ophthalmologist, % (n/N) row “66.1 (21/41)” should read “66.1 (41/62)”; Seen by a provider other than ophthalmologist, % (n/N) row “66.1 (21/41)” should read “32.8 (20/61)”; Systemic anti-fungal, % (n/N) row “9.7 (6/62)” should read “0.0 (0/62)”.
Page 393, Table 2, Yeast row, “33.8” should read “33.9”.
Page 394, Table 3, Low vision (20/50 to 20/160) row, “15.0” should read “16.7” and “9/60” should read “10/60”; Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) row, “45.0” should read “43.3” and “27/60” should read “26/60”; Topical corticosteroid, % (n/N) row, “33.9” should read “34.4”.
Page 396, second paragraph, third line, the text “(92.6%)” should read “(88.9%)”.
Page 396, Discussion section, third paragraph, line 1, the text “two weeks” should read “three weeks”.
Page 397, second paragraph, third, fourth and fifth sentences, the text “Although the final VA was similar between the two groups, a higher proportion of eyes underwent PK, underwent enucleation, or lost light perception in the filamentous keratitis group. One possible reason is the longer duration of infection before culturing (16.4 vs 7.1 days, p = 0.02), indicating delayed diagnosis and possibly more severe infection at the time of referral. Due to the worse visual outcomes amongst patients with filamentous keratitis, it is imperative to treat these patients aggressively and early” should read “Although the final VA was similar between the two groups, a higher proportion of eyes underwent PK, underwent enucleation, or lost light perception in the filamentous keratitis group. Due to the worse visual outcomes amongst patients with filamentous keratitis, it is imperative to treat these patients aggressively and early”.
The authors apologize for these errors and advise they do not affect the scientific conclusions of the paper.