Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
CorrectionErratum

Erratum

American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2012, 33 (4) e68; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3116
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

In the February article “The Predictive Value of 3D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography in Assessment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Obliteration after Radiosurgery” by Buis et al (2012;33:232–38), the data in Table 4 contained an error. The correct data are presented below. As some of these data were mentioned in the Results and Discussion sections, and in the abstract, these sections have been corrected as well. These corrections do not affect the authors' conclusions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Predictive value of MRI2 for ‘Definitive Obliteration (DO)' in comparison to DSA2C

Corrections

Abstract, results, lines 5–8: PPVs of final follow-up MR-imaging for definitive obliteration varied between 0.89 and 0.95. NPV was 0.52. An average false-positive rate, meaning overestimation of nidus obliteration of 0.10 and an average false-negative rate, meaning underestimation of nidus obliteration of 0.42 were found.

Results, p. 234, line 9 and further: PPV of MR-imaging2 for definitive obliteration varied between 0.89 and 0.95. NPV was 0.52 (Table 4).

Results section, p. 234, line 13 and further:… patent nidus on DSA2c for an average false-positive rate of 0.10 (Fig 1A).

Results section, p. 234, line 20 and further:…. for a false-negative-rate of 0.42 (Fig 1C).

Discussion section, p. 234, lines 18–20:… rate of 0.10 for 2 observers, which is comparable with that in other studies. A false-negative rate of 0.42 was found.

  • © 2012 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 33 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 33, Issue 4
1 Apr 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Erratum
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Erratum
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2012, 33 (4) e68; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Erratum
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2012, 33 (4) e68; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reply:
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • ERRATUM
  • Erratum
  • Erratum
Show more ERRATUM

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire