Lucy Stuttard1, Philip Boyle2, Caroline Fairhurst3, Catherine Hewitt3, Francesco Longo4, Simon Walker4, Helen Weatherly4, Emese Mayhew2, Bryony Beresford2. 1. Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Church Lane Building, York Science Park, University of York, York, Heslington, YO10 5DF, UK. lucy.stuttard@york.ac.uk. 2. Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Church Lane Building, York Science Park, University of York, York, Heslington, YO10 5DF, UK. 3. York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. 4. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Correction to: Trials 22, 700 (2021).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05607-9Following the publication of the original article [1], we were notified of the below:1. The flow of participants from randomisation to T1 was missing in Fig. 1. Originally published vs. corrected Fig. 1 are presented below
Fig. 1:
CONSORT Flow Diagram: enrolment to T1 (primary endpoint)
CONSORT Flow Diagram: enrolment to T1 (primary endpoint)Originally published Fig. 1Corrected Fig. 1CONSORT Flow Diagram: enrolment to T1 (primary endpoint)2. The formatting of Table 4 in the pdf needed adjustments.3. Background: the final sentence of fourth paragraph:“However, this did not include study participants (n = 3) with hearing dogs included in the effectiveness study [28].”Should read:“However, study participants (n = 3) with hearing dogs were not included in the effectiveness study [28].”The original article has been corrected.