We regret that throughout the above manuscript, the term “CURB-65” was incorrectly used instead of the correct term “CRB-65”. All affected sentences are corrected as follows.
Page 1156; abstract, third paragraph:
Most younger patients presented with mild CAP (74.0% had a CRB-65 score of 0 (confusion of new onset, respiratory rate of ≥30 breaths·min−1, blood pressure <90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mmHg, age ≥65 yrs)).
Page 1157; Methods section, fourth subsection:
CRB-65 score and mortality
The CRB-65 score (confusion of new onset, respiratory rate of ≥30 breaths·min−1, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mmHg, age ≥65 yrs) was determined in all patients. One point is given for each parameter present, which results in CRB-65 scores of 0–4. For each patient, the CRB-65 score was calculated with patient data assessed at first presentation.
Page 1157; Results section, second paragraph:
The distribution of CRB-65 risk classes (in patients with complete data sets) was as follows: CRB-65 score of 0 in 34.3% (n=2,677), 1–2 in 50.6% (n=3,945) and 3–4 in 4.2% (n=328) of patients.
Page 1158; first column, fourth paragraph:
CRB-65 risk class distribution was very similar across all younger decades (72–75% risk class 1, 24–28% risk class 2 and <1% risk class 3).
Page 1158; second column, final paragraph:
CRB-65 score was determined as 0 in three, as 1–2 in four and as 3–4 in one of them.
Page 1160; second column, third paragraph:
First, younger patients were hospitalised in nearly 50% of cases, despite the fact that around 75% of patients had a CRB-65 score of 0.
- ©ERS 2012
