In Table 2 of the above-cited article, the difference (95% CI) after intervention for VAT (kg) was inadvertently reported as 1.40 (−2.17 to 4.98). The correct value is 0.140 (−0.217 to 0.498).
In the Supplementary Fig. 1 (study recruitment), it was reported that 230 patients were assessed for eligibility; the correct number of patients was 222. With regard to reasons for lost to follow-up, in the RYGB and RYGB+ET groups, respectively, it was reported that 8 and 8 patients did not undergo surgery and that 2 and 1 patients withdrew after surgery for personal reasons, when in fact 3 and 4 patients did not undergo surgery and 7 and 5 withdrew after surgery for personal reasons. These changes to the flow of participants do not affect analysis, as the number of patients randomized, lost to follow-up, evaluated, and analyzed (by ITT) was accurate.
The authors apologize for the errors.
The online version of the article (https://doi.org/10.2337/db19-1180) and its supplementary material have been updated to correct the errors.
