Abstract
Carvalho C, Varela SAM, Bastos LF, et al. The Relevance of In Silico, In Vitro and Non-human Primate Based Approaches to Clinical Research on Major Depressive Disorder. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2019; 47(3–4): 128–139. DOI: 10.1177/0261192919885578
The authors regret that there is an error in the above referenced article. In the Results section, the Log values were used instead of the mean citation numbers, i.e where it is stated:
‘The GLM estimated the average number of citations per paper for each of the three approaches (Figure 1 (a)). Each NHP paper was cited 3.73 times (standard error (SE): 0.03). Papers based on in silico approaches were cited less frequently than this (3.29 times; i.e. 0.44, SE: 0.05), and papers based on in vitro approaches were cited more frequently (4.23 times; i.e. +0.5, SE: 0.04). Both differences were statistically significant (p < 0.0001).’
It should be:
‘The GLM estimated the average number of citations per paper for each of the three approaches (Figure 1 (a)). Each NHP paper was cited 42.05 times (standard error (SE): 1.450). Papers based on in silico approaches were cited less frequently than this (26.87 times; i.e. -15.18, SE: 0.946), and papers based on in vitro approaches were cited more frequently (69.57 times; i.e. +27.52, SE: 1.371). Both differences were statistically significant (p < 0.0001).’