Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: European Radiology
The original version of this article, published on 04 February 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: The presentation of Fig. 2 was incorrect. The corrected figure is given below.
Modelled cancer detection rate per 1000 against recall rate (a) and false positive recall rate (b) for IHG and LIG at incident and prevalent screens. Modelled false positive recall (FPR), IHG and LIG per 1000 for prevalent screens (c) with P95 and P99 recall rate values and same for incident screens (d)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5957-2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blanks, R.G., Given-Wilson, R.M., Cohen, S.L. et al. Correction to: An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol 29, 7074–7075 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06307-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06307-4