PhD thesis – Anna Moberg
Diagnosing pneumonia in primary care
Aspects of the value of clinical and laboratory findings and the use of chest X-ray
Errata
1 Table 4 p.32
The number of quite sure in Paper II – intervention group reads 31- it should read 35 2 Table 10 p.39
The legend reads: Odds ratios of degree of suspicion of pneumonia… It should read: Odds ratios of any degree of suspicion of pneumonia… 3 Paper I Table 1, p 4 in article:
The symbol > should be ≥
The variable “Age ≥65 years” is missing. The variable resulted in a p-value of 0.25 and unadjusted/adjusted OR of 1.6 (0.71-3.7) and 1.3 (0.41-4.1) respectively.
The lower confidence interval for OR in crude analyses of current smoker reads 0.9. It should read 0.09. The multiple logistic regression of gender resulted in a p-value of 0.28, OR 0.52 (0.16-1.7).
4 Paper III Table 1, p 6 in manuscript:
In the columns ‘Number of patients’ and ‘Data Missing’, the figures within brackets represent proportions (%).
5 Paper IV in article
In the part Comparison with existing literature, p 7, third paragraph, it reads:
“ …one study by van Vugt et al showed that low values does not exclude radiographic pneumonia, whereas a study by Lagerström et al suggested that CRP testing can help to exclude pneumonia”
It should read:
“ …one study by Lagerström et al showed that low values does not exclude radiographic pneumonia, whereas a study by van Vugt et al suggested that CRP testing can help to exclude pneumonia”
