Corrigendum to "Are the Two Human Papillomavirus Vaccines Really Similar? A Systematic Review of Available Evidence: Efficacy of the Two Vaccines against HPV".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2015/435141.].

In the article titled “Are the Two Human Papillomavirus Vaccines Really Similar? A Systematic Review of Available Evidence: Efficacy of the Two Vaccines against HPV” [1], there was an error in the Discussion section, where “Our systematic review highlights that, for precancerous lesions (CIN), the only available proxy of cervical cancer and heterogeneity among pooled studies is substantial” should be changed to “Our systematic review highlights that, for precancerous lesions (CIN), the only available proxy of cervical cancer, heterogeneity among pooled studies is substantial.” In addition, there was an error in Table 3. The corrected table is as follows.

Table 3

Baseline characteristics of women enrolled in the four studies presented in the meta-analysis.

Study [reference]	Age mean (SD)		HPV 16 positivityat enrolment (%)				HPV 18 positivityat enrolment (%)				Lifetime numberof sexual partners(median)			Smoking status (%)		Chlamydia trachomatis (%)		Hormonal contraceptive use (%)		Cytological abnormality at entry (%)
			DNA		Serology		DNA		Serology
	V	C	V	C	V	C	V	C	V	C		V	C	V	C	V	C	V	C	V	C
GSK [11, 12, 28]	20 ± 3	21 ± 3	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR		NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
PATRICIA [13, 27]	20 ± 3	20 ± 3	6	5	17	17	2	2	12	12	0 ∗	4%	4%	30	30	6	5	59	61	10	9
											1 ∗	74%	74%
											2 ∗	14%	15%
											≥3 ∗	8%	8%
FUTURE I [16, 26, 30]	20 ± 2	20 ± 2	9	8	12	12	3	3	3	3		2	2	26	26	4	5	58	57	11	12
FUTURE II [17, 26, 30]	20 ± 2	20 ± 2	9	9	11	11	4	4	4	4		2	2	NR	NR	4	4	59	60	12	11

V: vaccine group; C: control group; NR: not reported. ∗Results are presented as percentage of women stratified by number of sexual partners.