Front. Vet. Sci.Frontiers in Veterinary ScienceFront. Vet. Sci.2297-1769Frontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fvets.2024.1365518Veterinary ScienceCorrectionCorrigendum: Non-invasive methods to assess muscle function in dogs: a scoping reviewDahlKathrine Højte1*ZebisMette Kreutzfeldt23VitgerAnne Désiré1MilesJames Edward1AlkjærTine451Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark2Department of Midwifery, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy and Psychomotor Therapy, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark3Institute of Sports Medicine Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark4Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark5The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
Edited and reviewed by: Ali Mobasheri, University of Oulu, Finland
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 Non-invasive methods to assess muscle function in dogs: a scoping review by Dahl, K. H., Zebis, M. K., Vitger, A. D., Miles, J. E., and Alkjær, T. (2023). Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1116854. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1116854dogsmuscle functionmethodsnon-invasivecranial cruciate ligament rupturesection-at-acceptanceComparative and Clinical Medicine
In the published article, there was an error in Figure 4 as published. “Electrical impedance myography” was repeated by mistake the square furthest to the right in the second row from the top. This box should have instead read “Subjective evaluation”. The corrected Figure 4 and its caption appear below.
The grading of the identified muscle function assessment methods made by experts in biomechanics (x-axis) and clinical experts (y-axis) in relation to dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease. The most optimal techniques are placed closer to the upper right corner, and the least optimal closest to the lower left corner.
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.
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.