Correction to: A cross-sectional study examining convergent validity of a frailty index based on electronic medical records in a Canadian primary care program.

Following the publication of this article [1], the authors reported a typesetting error in the "Results" section.

Correction to: BMC Geriatr

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1119-x

Following the publication of this article [1], the authors reported an error in the “Results” section. The error occurred in the sentences:

Although the frailty index is meant to be used as a continuous score [25], to describe different frailty levels as defined by the FI-CGA and eFI, we used proposed cut-off scores identified using stratum specific likelihood ratios by Hoover et al. [26] that had been validated in a sample of community dwelling seniors in Canada: non-frail (0 to ≤0.1), vulnerable (> 0.1 to ≤0.21), frail (> 0.21 to < 0.45), and most frail (> 0.45) [26]. However, due to low frequency of scores of 0.1 and less (only one person), we merged non-frail and vulnerable categories as following: non-frail (0 to ≤0.21), frail (> 0.21to < 0.45), and most frail (> 0.45 ≥0.45).

The final value for both sentences should in fact read: “most frail (≥0.45).”

The original article has been corrected, and the publisher apologizes to the authors and readers for any inconvenience.