Journal Section:
Erratum

In the article “Stroke Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guidelines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Quality and Unique Features” [Cerebrovasc Dis. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1159/000539999] by Gandhi et al., the name and affiliation of the senior author was incorrectly given.

The correct name is:

John M. Solomon

The correct affiliation is:

lDepartment of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India; mCentre for Comprehensive Stroke Rehabilitation and Research, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

In addition, the paragraph “Quality Assessment of the CPGs by AGREE-II and AGREE-REX” in the Results section also contains a number of errors. The paragraph should read as follows:

Only four countries (Pakistan [20], Sri Lanka [21], China [31], and India [22]) had developed CPGs exclusively for their countries without contextualizing the guidelines from HICs. Therefore, these CPGs were considered for quality assessment using AGREE instruments. In general, all four CPGs scored lower on AGREE-REX than AGREE-II. Considering individual domain scores, the domain of Scope and purpose in AGREE-II scored the most, while the clarity of presentation component followed the second highest score. CPGs scored poorly on Rigor of development and applicability. Due to the lack of information and reporting related to the domain of editorial independence, this component was scored as 0 for all four CPGs (shown in Fig. 2). Similarly, all four CPGs from Sri Lanka, China, Pakistan, and India scored very low on all three domains of AGREE-REX instrument showing poor clinical applicability, implementability, and consideration of the values and preferences of users (shown in Fig. 3). Overall, the CPGs from Pakistan scored 6.76% for methodological rigor and 0% for clinical aspects, while CPGs from Sri Lanka scored 4.34% on methodological rigor and 0.6% on clinical aspects and CPGs from India scored 8.45% and 1.23% on methodological rigor and clinical aspects, respectively (shown in Fig. 4).

© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2024