In the published article, there was an error in Table 3 as published. Incorrect values were entered into the “discordant pairs” and “weighted k” columns. The corrected Table 3 and its caption “Agreement between quintile combinations of computed Canadian Front-of-pack labelling and other dietary index systems” appear below.
Table 3
| CAN-FOPL | Discordant pairs*, n (%) | Weighted k†[95% CI] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | ||||
| DCCP | Q1 | 9.6 | 5.6 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 8,852 (65.6%) | 0.38 [0.36, 0.39] |
| Q2 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | |||
| Q3 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 3.3 | |||
| Q4 | 1.8 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 5.5 | |||
| Q5 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 3.2 | 5.5 | 9.1 | |||
| Nutri-score | Q1 | 8.7 | 5.2 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 9,217 (68.3%) | 0.30 [0.29, 0.31] |
| Q2 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 2.2 | |||
| Q3 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 3.3 | |||
| Q4 | 2.2 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.9 | |||
| Q5 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 3.6 | 5.3 | 8.1 | |||
| DASH | Q1 | 18.8 | 16.9 | 15.5 | 15.0 | 15.1 | 10,431 (77.3%) | 0.05 [0.05, 0.06] |
| Q2 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.7 | |||
| Q3 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.2 | |||
| Q4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | |||
| Q5 | < 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |||
| HEFI-2019‡ | Q1 | 7.8 | 4.9 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 9,500 (70.4%) | 0.26 [0.25, 0.27] |
| Q2 | 5.0 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 2.6 | |||
| Q3 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 3.3 | |||
| Q4 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 4.8 | |||
| Q5 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 7.8 | |||
Agreement between quintile combinations of computed Canadian Front-of-pack labelling and other dietary index systems.
n = 13,495. Increasing quintiles (Q) indicate higher scores (i.e., “healthier” diet quality). Each cell includes the proportion (%) of the total sample falling into the respective quintile combinations. Shaded cells indicate concordant pairs (i.e., samples falling into the same quintile according to the two examined dietary index systems) with 20% in each cell representing perfect agreement, while non-shaded cells indicate discordant pairs (i.e., samples identified as “Less healthy” in one dietary system and “More healthy” in another dietary index system). *Discordant pairs are presented as the total number of identified samples and the proportion (%) of the total sample. †Agreement between dietary index scores were assessed using weighted κ statistic, where: 0.01–0.20 represented “slight” agreement; 0.21–0.40 “fair”; 0.41–0.60 “moderate”; 0.61–0.80 “substantial”; and 0.81–0.99 “near perfect” (38). ‡HEFI-2019 was set as the reference standard. CAN-FOPL, Canadian Front-of-Pack Labelling; DASH, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Diet; DCCP, Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guideline; HEFI, Healthy Eating Food Index.
In the published article, there was an error during the revision process. The weighted k statistic results were incorrectly represented. A correction has been made to Results, Relationship between Dietary Index Systems, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:
“The CAN-FOPL dietary index scores showed slight agreement with the DCCP and the Nutri-score (k = 0.30–0.38) with over 65% of the total sample identified as discordant pairs (i.e., “Less healthy” in one system and “More healthy” in another system).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The CAN-FOPL dietary index scores showed fair agreement with the DCCP and the Nutri-score (k = 0.30–0.38) with over 65% of the total sample identified as discordant pairs (i.e., “Less healthy” in one system and “More healthy” in another system).”
The authors apologize for the error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
front-of-pack, FOPL, dietary patterns, nutrient profiling, HEFI, Nutri-score, DASH, DCCP
Citation
Lee JJ, Ahmed M, Julia C, Ng AP, Paper L, Lou WY and L'Abbé MR (2024) Corrigendum: Examining the diet quality of Canadian adults and the alignment of Canadian front-of-pack labelling regulations with other front-of-pack labelling systems and dietary guidelines. Front. Public Health 12:1448853. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1448853
Received
14 June 2024
Accepted
22 July 2024
Published
06 August 2024
Volume
12 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Jordi Salas-Salvado, Rovira i Virgili University, Spain
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Lee, Ahmed, Julia, Ng, Paper, Lou and L'Abbé.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mary R. L'Abbé mary.labbe@utoronto.ca
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.