Corrigendum: Post-operative complications and nipple necrosis rates between conventional and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Patient-reported outcomes following various incision techniques in breast reconstruction: an observational cohort study in China.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Post-Operative Complications and Nipple Necrosis Rates Between Conventional and Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.2020

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as