The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the percentage of patients under ‘Baseline’ was calculated from the total no. of patients with geriatric recommendations data (n = 932 pts). This was mistakenly calculated from the number of patients with available GA data (n = 979). Percentages have been recalculated. The corrected table is reproduced here (Table 3). We emphasize that these percentages are not mentioned in the text of the paper nor do they change any of the conclusions. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.status: publishe
In the original published version of this article the Funding statement was incorrect. The correct s...
The authors would like to correct an error that appears in Table 1 of the published article mentione...
The authors regret that in Table 1 (page 142), footnote ‘a’ should be removed and in Table 2 (page 1...
The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the ...
When this paper was first published, there were errors in Figure 1 and Table 3. These errors have no...
The authors regret that on page 68, Table 3, the number of observed cases, the PAR, and the attribut...
International audienceAfter publication of the original article [1] the authors found that Table 2 h...
The authors would like to inform that in the original publication two rows stating ‘RT alone’ in Tab...
The authors regret that in Tables 5a and 5b, the column heading ‘All’ should be changed to ‘All Asso...
We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in \ud this article. The validity of the findin...
The authors regret that reference 5 (Milam et al., 2011) in the original article was included in the...
The authors regret that Table 1 was incorrect. Regarding the baseline table (Table 1); most of the b...
The Authors regret that there was a typo in the percentage of response groups in the abstract and ma...
This is a correction to: The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, Volume 72, Issue 11, November 2017...
The authors regret that the incorrect author affiliation was published. The correct affiliations of ...
In the original published version of this article the Funding statement was incorrect. The correct s...
The authors would like to correct an error that appears in Table 1 of the published article mentione...
The authors regret that in Table 1 (page 142), footnote ‘a’ should be removed and in Table 2 (page 1...
The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the ...
When this paper was first published, there were errors in Figure 1 and Table 3. These errors have no...
The authors regret that on page 68, Table 3, the number of observed cases, the PAR, and the attribut...
International audienceAfter publication of the original article [1] the authors found that Table 2 h...
The authors would like to inform that in the original publication two rows stating ‘RT alone’ in Tab...
The authors regret that in Tables 5a and 5b, the column heading ‘All’ should be changed to ‘All Asso...
We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in \ud this article. The validity of the findin...
The authors regret that reference 5 (Milam et al., 2011) in the original article was included in the...
The authors regret that Table 1 was incorrect. Regarding the baseline table (Table 1); most of the b...
The Authors regret that there was a typo in the percentage of response groups in the abstract and ma...
This is a correction to: The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, Volume 72, Issue 11, November 2017...
The authors regret that the incorrect author affiliation was published. The correct affiliations of ...
In the original published version of this article the Funding statement was incorrect. The correct s...
The authors would like to correct an error that appears in Table 1 of the published article mentione...
The authors regret that in Table 1 (page 142), footnote ‘a’ should be removed and in Table 2 (page 1...