The authors regret the error identified by Sugrue et al regarding our recent publication, and thank them for their diligent analysis and communication. At some point during the submission process, several variable rows for BMI were lost. Specifically, the BMI <18.5 category in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 (BMI) should thus read: [Table presented] And Table 4 (BMI) should thus read: [Table presented] These variables therefore contain data for the entire 16,812 cases in the cohort. At some point during the submission process, the data for Operative Time in Table 3 was altered, and, as the commenters suggest, are not accurate. The correct data is: [Table presented] With regard to ASA, 21 values were missing. Therefore, there was complete data for 16,791 out of 16,812 (99.9%) cases for all variables. All subsequent statistics were performed using the data present above, and therefore the included p-values in the relevant tables and subsequent multivariate analysis and conclusions drawn therein are not changed. With regard to the comment that “Variables with less than 85% completion rate were excluded from the analysis”, readers will note that in the article this is followed by “This included many pre-operative laboratory values including albumin, international normalized ratio (INR), creatinine, and platelets.” All included variables in our statistical method had data in greater than 85% of the cohort in NSQIP, as demonstrated. We again thank Sugrue et al for their diligent reading of this paper and correctly identifying these inconsistencies in the presented cohort sizes. We regret not recognizing these during the submission process. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Best regards, Andrew M. Simpson, Daniel P. Donato, Alvin C. Kwok, Jayant P.
ASJC Scopus subject areas