In the article cited above, the statistical method mistakenly appeared in the abstract as “mixed effects logistic regression” and should have appeared as “on univariate mixed Cox and logistic regression,” and the subsequent phrase should have read as follows: “there was no significant difference in time to resolution between the groups (P = 0.64) or in the likelihood of resolution (P = 0.66).”
In the abstract, “the odds ratio of resolution by 12 months was 1.22 (0.90, 1.67; P = 0.20)” should have appeared as “the odds ratio of resolution by 12 months was 0.80 (95% CI 0.3, 2.13; P = 0.66).”
In Table 2, the reported values of 95% CI under the column “Resolution rate” of “Control group,” which appeared as 056, 071, and 079, should have been 0.56, 0.71, and 0.79.
The authors apologize for the errors.
The online version of the article (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0008) has been updated to correct these errors.
