In section Methods, subsection Data analysis, paragraph 2: the reference for “In cases where standard errors (SEs) were provided, SDs were calculated using the formula: SD = SE√n” was erroneously written as (13). It should be (15) as stated below.
“In cases where standard errors (SEs) were provided, SDs were calculated using the formula: SD = SE√n (15).”
In section Results, paragraph 3: the references for “Low heterogeneity was observed (Q = 0.37; df = 25; P = 0.22; I² = 20%) but decreased to 0% after excluding three outlier studies” were erroneously written as (26, 29, 42). It should be (28, 31, 44) as stated below.
“Low heterogeneity was observed (Q = 0.37; df = 25; P = 0.22; I² = 20%) but decreased to 0% after excluding three outlier studies (28, 31, 44)”
In section Results, paragraph 6: the references for “However, excluding four influential studies” were erroneously written as (26, 27, 31, 32). It should be (26, 28, 29, 34) as stated below.
“However, excluding four influential studies (26, 28, 29, 34)…”
There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 1 as published. The term “seasonal” was incorrectly inserted in the sentence “Meta-analysis of 25 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.” and should be deleted. The corrected caption of Figure 1 appears below.
“Meta-analysis of 25 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The SMD and 95% CI for the effect of treatment on symptom score (SS) are plotted on the graph.”
There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 3 as published. The term “seasonal” was incorrectly inserted in the sentence “Meta-analysis of 20 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.” and should be deleted. The corrected caption of Figure 3 appears below.
“Meta-analysis of 20 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The SMD and 95% CI for the effect of treatment on medication score (MS) are plotted on the graph.”
The original version of this article has been updated.
Statements
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.
Summary
Keywords
meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, rhinitis, allergic, SLIT-liquid, sublingual immunotherapy, systematic review
Citation
Di Bona D, Di Biase A, Paoletti G, Villani R, Serviddio G, Cognet-Sicé J, Scurati S and Canonica GW (2025) Correction: Efficacy of index of reactivity-liquid sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Front. Allergy 6:1652198. doi: 10.3389/falgy.2025.1652198
Received
23 June 2025
Accepted
08 July 2025
Published
25 July 2025
Volume
6 - 2025
Edited and reviewed by
Nikolaos (Nikos) G. Papadopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Di Bona, Di Biase, Paoletti, Villani, Serviddio, Cognet-Sicé, Scurati and Canonica.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Danilo Di Bona danilo.dibona@unifg.it
Disclaimer
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.