Correction to “Myositis-Related Autoantibody Profile and Clinical Characteristics Stratified by Anti-Cytosolic 5′-Nucleotidase 1A Status in Connective Tissue Diseases”
L. P. Diederichsen, L. V. Iversen, C. T. Nielsen, et al., “Myositis-Related Autoantibody Profile and Clinical Characteristics Stratified by Anti-Cytosolic 5′-Nucleotidase 1A Status in Connective Tissue Diseases,” Muscle & Nerve 68, no. 1 (2023):73–80, https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27841.
On page 73, in paragraph 3, lines 3–4 of the Abstract the sentence “Anti-cN-1A positivity had an overall sensitivity of 46.9% and a specificity of 93.2% for sIBM” is incorrect as the specificity for sIBM was 93.0%. The sentence should have read “Anti-cN-1A positivity had an overall sensitivity of 46.9% and a specificity of 93.0% for sIBM.”
On page 74, in paragraph 3, line 4 of the Introduction the text “cytosolic 50-nucleotidase 1A” is incorrect. The text should have read “cytosolic 5′-nucleotidase 1A.”
On page 75, the header describing Table 1: “Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls (non-IBM IIM, SLE, SSc, and healthy controls) and versus non-IBM IIM” is insufficient and may cause misunderstandings. The header of Table 1 should have read: “Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls (non-IBM IIM, SLE, SSc, and healthy controls) and anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM.”
In Table 1, the header of the left column: “Anti-cN-1A for all controls” is insufficient and misleading. The header of the left column of Table 1 should have read “Anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls.”
In Table 1, the header of the right column: “Anti-cN-1A for non-IBM IIM” is insufficient and misleading. The header of the right column of Table 1 should have read “Anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM.”
The data in the right column of Table 1 shows the sensitivity of anti-cN-1A for non-IBM IIM 15.2% (18/118) instead of the sensitivity of anti cN-1A for sIBM 46.9% (30/64). That is a serious error due to the fact that the text specifying the table content said that the table shows the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls (non-IBM IIM, SLE, SSc and healthy controls [left column] and versus non-IBM IIM [right column]). In the right column of Table 1, the sensitivity should have read 46.9% (30/64).
In Table 1, the specificity and negative predictive value of anti cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls (left column) were swapped. The correct specificity of anti cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls is 93.0% (468/503) and the correct negative predictive value for sIBM versus all controls is 93.2% (468/502).
In Table 1, the specificity and negative predictive value of anti cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM (right column) were swapped. The correct specificity of anti cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM is 84.7% (100/118) and the correct negative predictive value for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM is 74.6% (100/134).
The corrected Table 1 is shown here.
TABLE 1Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls (non-IBM IIM, SLE, SSc, and healthy controls) and anti-cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM.
| Anti cN-1A for sIBM versus all controls | Anti cN-1A for sIBM versus non-IBM IIM | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 46.9% (30/64) | 46.9% (30/64) |
| Specificity | 93.0% (468/503) | 84.7% (100/118) |
| Positive predictive value | 46.2% (30/65) | 62.5% (30/48) |
| Negative predictive value | 93.2% (468/502) | 74.6% (100/134) |
- Abbreviations: IBM, inclusion body myositis; IIM, idiopathic inflammatory myopathy; sIBM, sporadic inclusion body myositis; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; SSc, systemic sclerosis.
On page 77, paragraph 2, lines 8–9 of the Discussion, the sentence “Similarly, we found a specificity of 93.2% for anti-cN-1A in our cohort.” is incorrect as the specificity for sIBM was 93.0%. The sentence should have read “Similarly, we found a specificity of 93.0% for anti-cN-1A in our cohort.”
On page 77, paragraph 3, lines 1–2 of the Discussion, the sentence “When anti-cN-1A was used to distinguish sIBM from non-IBM myositis the specificity was reduced to 74.6% in the present study.” is incorrect as the specificity of anti-cN-1a for sIBM versus non-IBM myositis is 84.7%. The sentence should have read: “When anti-cN-1A was used to distinguish sIBM from non-IBM myositis the specificity was reduced to 84.7% in the present study.”
We apologize for the errors and the misunderstanding they may have caused.
