In the meta-analysis we compared two types of ‘barrier caps’ respectively the Curos and the SwabCap. We described that the study of Cameron-Watson (2016) used the Curos barrier cap, however, this is incorrect. Cameron-Watson studied the effectiveness of the Curos barrier cap. This incorrect description has consequences for the subgroup analysis (of the meta-analysis) we have performed. Subgroup analysis showed that the Curos (IRR= 0.47, 95% CI= 0.31 to 0.72) and SwabCap (IRR= 0.72, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.86) were equally effective. See corrected Tables 1 and 2, and Fig. 2 for further details (Supplementary data S3). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.007

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.001, hdl.handle.net/1765/108754
Journal International Journal of Nursing Studies
Citation
Voor in 't holt, A.F, Helder, K, MScN, Vos, M.C, Schafthuizen, L, Sülz, S, van den Hoogen, A, & Ista, E. (2018). Corrigendum to ‘Antiseptic barrier cap effective in reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis’. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 84, 79–80. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.001