In the published article, there was an error in Table 1 as published.
“Substrate diversity (<3 substrates vs. ≥4 substrates)” should have read “Substrate diversity (≤3 substrates vs. ≥4 substrates)”. The corrected Table 1 and its caption appear below.
Table 1
| Training injuries | ||
|---|---|---|
| Parameter | RR* | p-value† |
| Age (< 6 years old vs. ≥6 years old) | 1.2558 | 0.1809 |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 0.9611 | 0.8111 |
| Concurrent sports (No vs. Yes) | 0.7989 | 0.1491 |
| Substrate diversity (≤ 3 substrates vs. ≥4 substrates) | 1.0593 | 0.8465 |
| Competition injuries | ||
| Parameter | RR* | p-value† |
| History of training injury (No vs. Yes) | 2.2846 | 0.0005 |
| Age (< 6 years old vs. ≥6 years old) | 5.7935 | < 0.00001 |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 0.9904 | 1.0000 |
| Concurrent sports (No vs. Yes) | 1.0267 | 1.0000 |
| Substrate diversity (≤ 3 substrates vs. ≥4 substrates) | 1.1795 | 0.6362 |
Relative risk for training injury and competition injury in canine agility athletes.
Relative Risk (RR) was defined as the proportion of dogs with a history of injury that were positive for the parameter of interest, relative to the proportion of dogs with a history of injury that were negative for the parameter of interest. RR was calculated from 2 × 2 contingency tables.
The significance level was α = 0.05. The p-value was calculated using the Fisher's Exact Test.
In the published article, there were two errors in the main text.
A correction has been made to the section Results, Substrate diversity and modifications to substrate use based on performance, paragraph 1.
This sentence previously stated:
“When substrate diversity was divided into binary categories—dogs with less substrate diversity (<3 substrates in training regimen) vs. dogs with more substrate diversity (≥4 substrates in training regimen), there was no impact of substrate diversity on the Relative Risk of TI or CI (Table 1).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“When substrate diversity was divided into binary categories—dogs with less substrate diversity (≤ 3 substrates in training regimen) vs. dogs with more substrate diversity (≥4 substrates in training regimen), there was no impact of substrate diversity on the Relative Risk of TI or CI (Table 1).”
A correction has been made to the section Discussion, paragraph 15.
This sentence previously stated:
“For example, 51.5% (141/274) of dogs with experience training on <3 substrates were reported to have at least one MDP on natural grass, while 81.8% (27/33) of dogs with experience on ≥4 substrates were reported to have at least one MDP on natural grass.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“For example, 51.5% (141/274) of dogs with experience training on ≤3 substrates were reported to have at least one MDP on natural grass, while 81.8% (27/33) of dogs with experience on ≥4 substrates were reported to have at least one MDP on natural grass.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original 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
canine agility, agility, medial shoulder syndrome, orthopedics, sports medicine, substrates, injury
Citation
Jimenez IA, Canapp Jr SO and Percival ML (2023) Corrigendum: Internet-based survey evaluating the impact of ground substrate on injury and performance in canine agility athletes. Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1130146. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1130146
Received
22 December 2022
Accepted
22 March 2023
Published
31 March 2023
Volume
10 - 2023
Edited by
Karine Portier, Université de Lyon, France
Reviewed by
Barbara Bockstahler, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Jimenez, Canapp and Percival.
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: Isabel A. Jimenez isabeljimenezdvm@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science
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.