Erratum to: A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals
© Caulfield and DeBow; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
Received: 02 June 2008
Accepted: 17 June 2008
Published: 17 June 2008
It has come to our attention that there are several referencing errors in the published version of our article . The errors are small and do not impact the conclusions of the paper. Nevertheless, we feel it is important to recognize and correct the mistakes, particularly since some involve quotes.
In the second paragraph of the Results section, the first quote should include only the word "quackery" and not the entire phrase. Similarly, the last quote should only include that phrase after the comma (i.e., "they do not rule out the possibility that individual patients may benefit from this homeopathic treatment"). On page 3 in the Discussion section's 1st paragraph, we incorrectly cite reference 5 for a quote that is out of reference 7. For reference 6, the correct page numbers are 92–111. And for reference 3 the page numbers are 1–10.
- Caulfield T, Debow S: A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2005, 5: 12-10.1186/1472-6882-5-12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/31/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.