Front. Public HealthFrontiers in Public HealthFront. Public Health2296-2565Frontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fpubh.2018.00345Public HealthCorrectionCorrigendum: Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration Threshold Best Predicts Ovulation?LeivaRene Antonio1*BouchardThomas Paul2AbdullahSaman Hasan3456EcochardRené34561Bruyère Research Institute and C. T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada2Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada3Service de Biostatistique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France4Université de Lyon, Lyon, France5Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France6Équipe Biostatistique-Santé, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5558, Villeurbanne, France
Edited and reviewed by: Rafael T. Mikolajczyk, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
*Correspondence: Rene Antonio Leiva rene.leiva@mail.mcgill.ca
This article was submitted to Population, Reproductive and Sexual Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
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.
A Corrigendum on Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration Threshold Best Predicts Ovulation? by Leiva, R. A., Bouchard, T. P., Abdullah, S. H., and Ecochard, R. (2017) Front. Public Health 5:320. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00320ovulation predictor kitsluteinizing hormonenatural family planningfertility awareness methodsinfertilityurineovulationfertile window
In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 3 “The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), confidence intervals (CI), negative predictive value (NPV), likehood ratios +'ve (LR+) and likehood ratios –'ve (LR-) for predicting ovulation within 24 h at 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 mIU/ml thresholds on the 11th day of the cycle”. Upon review of the tables prior to a journal club, it was noted that there were some numerical values that had been inadvertently misplaced under the wrong columns when updating different previously edited tables. The corrected Table 3 appears below.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), confidence intervals (CI), negative predictive value (NPV), likehood ratios +'ve (LR+) and likehood ratios −'ve (LR−) for predicting ovulation within 24 h at 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 mIU/ml thresholds on the 11th day of the cycle.
Threshold (mIU/ml)
Sn (CI)
Sp (CI)
PPV
NPV
LR+
LR–
40
0.23 (0.08–0.50)
0.99 (0.97–1.00)
0.23
0.99
20.62
0.78
35
0.31 (0.13–0.58)
0.99 (0.97–1.00)
0.31
0.99
27.49
0.97
30
0.46 (0.23–0.71)
0.99 (0.96–0.99)
0.60
0.97
30.92
0.55
25
0.54 (0.29–0.77)
0.97 (0.95–0.99)
0.50
0.98
20.62
0.47
20
0.54 (0.29–0.77)
0.96 (0.93–0.98)
0.41
0.98
14.43
0.48
15
0.54 (0.29–0.77)
0.94 (0.91–0.98)
0.32
0.98
9.62
0.49
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.