Corrigendum: Impact of cerebrovascular stroke on inflammatory periodontal indices: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of case-control studies

A corrigendum on

Impact of cerebrovascular stroke on inflammatory periodontal indices: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of case-control studies

By Dioguardi M, Bizzoca ME, Cantore S, Caloro GA, Musella G, Mastrangelo F, Lo Muzio L, Ballini A. Front Oral Health. (2024) 5:1473744. doi: 10.3389/froh.2024.1473744

Error in Figure/Table

In the published article, there was an error in figures 2–6 as published. In the forest plot images (figures 2–6) representing the results of the meta-analysis that have been published, the fixed effects have been applied unlike the Random effects as described in the captions and in the manuscript. The corrected (Figures 2–6) and its caption.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Forest plot of clinical attachment loss, mean difference: 1.04 95% CI [0.54, 1.54], Tau² = 0.29, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 88, Chi² = 42.30, df (degrees of freedom) 5, P value < 0.00001, test for overall effect: Z = 4.05 (P < 0.0001) weights: Abolfazli et al. 2011 15.6%, Diouf et al. 2015 20.3%, Dörfer et al. 2004 21.6%, Ghizoni et al. 2012 4.8%, Leira et al. 2016 2.40%, Pradeep et al. 2010 20.7%.the graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis, clinical attachment loss forest plot of the random effects model of the meta-analysis, exclusion of Leira et al., 2016 data.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Forest plot of probing pocket depth, mean difference: 0.68 95% CI [0.31, 1.06], Tau² = 0.14, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 90, Chi² = 41.58, df (degrees of freedom) 4, P value <0.00001, test for overall effect: Z = 3.56 (P < 0.0004) weights: Diouf et al., 2015 25.2%, Dörfer et al., 2004 25.4%, Ghizoni et al., 2012 7.9%, Leira et al., 2016 18.6%, Pradeep et al., 2010 22.9%. The graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis, probing pocket depth forest plot of the random effects model of the meta-analysis, exclusion of Leira et al., 2016 data.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Forest plot of radiological bone loss, mean difference: 2.15 95% CI [−1.58, 5.89], Tau² = 6.21, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 83, Chi² = 6.02, df (degrees of freedom) 1, P value = 0.01, test for overall effect: Z = 1.13 (P = 0.26) weights: Dörfer et al., 2004 58.2%, Lafon et al., 2014 41.8%, the graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

ORIGINAL Figures 2–6 appear below.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Forest plot of clinical attachment loss, mean difference: 1.04 95% CI [0.54, 1.54], Tau² = 0.29, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 88, Chi² = 42.30, df (degrees of freedom) 5, P value < 0.00001, test for overall effect: Z = 4.05 (P < 0.0001) weights: Abolfazli et al. 2011 15.6%, Diouf et al. 2015 20.3%, Dörfer et al. 2004 21.6%, Ghizoni et al. 2012 4.8%, Leira et al. 2016 2.40%, Pradeep et al. 2010 20.7%.the graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis, clinical attachment loss forest plot of the random effects model of the meta-analysis, exclusion of Leira et al., 2016 data.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Forest plot of probing pocket depth, mean difference: 0.68 95% CI [0.31, 1.06], Tau² = 0.14, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 90, Chi² = 41.58, df (degrees of freedom) 4, P value <0.00001, test for overall effect: Z = 3.56 (P < 0.0004) weights: Diouf et al., 2015 25.2%, Dörfer et al., 2004 25.4%, Ghizoni et al., 2012 7.9%, Leira et al., 2016 18.6%, Pradeep et al., 2010 22.9%. The graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis, probing pocket depth forest plot of the random effects model of the meta-analysis, exclusion of Leira et al., 2016 data.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Forest plot of radiological bone loss, mean difference: 2.15 95% CI [−1.58, 5.89], Tau² = 6.21, Higgins heterogeneity index I² = 83, Chi² = 6.02, df (degrees of freedom) 1, P value = 0.01, test for overall effect: Z = 1.13 (P = 0.26) weights: Dörfer et al., 2004 58.2%, Lafon et al., 2014 41.8%, the graph for each study included shows the first author, the date of publication, the number of patients with stroke and control, the average clinical attack loss in the two groups with the standard deviation (SD), the mean difference, the weight of the study on the meta-analysis. The final effect of the single study is expressed in a green square with the related confidence intervals (black line crossing the square) while the final effect of the meta-analysis is depicted by the black diamond whose width is given by the confidence intervals.

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

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.