Open Access

Erratum to: Pessaries in multiple pregnancy as a prevention of preterm birth: the ProTwin Trial

  • Sophie MS Liem1, 5Email author,
  • Dick J Bekedam1,
  • Kitty WM Bloemenkamp2,
  • Anneke Kwee3,
  • Dimitri NM Papatsonis4,
  • Joris AM van der Post5,
  • Arianne C Lim5,
  • Hubertina CJ Scheepers6,
  • Christine Willekes6,
  • Johannes J Duvekot7,
  • Marc Spaanderman8,
  • Martina Porath9,
  • Jim van Eyck10,
  • Monique C Haak11,
  • Marielle G van Pampus12,
  • Hein W Bruinse3,
  • Ben Willem J Mol5 and
  • Maud A Hegeman1
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth201212:37

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-37

Received: 5 April 2012

Accepted: 23 May 2012

Published: 23 May 2012

The original article was published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2009 9:44

The initial sample size calculation in our protocol [1] was based on the expected proportion of ‘bad neonatal outcome’ in the intervention group (3.9%) and control group (7.2%) and accounts for the fact that the outcomes in children from multiple pregnancies are non-independent using an intra class correlation of 0.6. As the intervention is performed on the mother, analysis should be done on the maternal level. This adjustment was made during recruitment and approved by the medical ethics committee. The sample size is calculated based on the primary outcome 'bad neonatal outcome'. In the control group, 'bad neonatal outcome' is expected in 7.2% of the children 1.8 % * 77 % + 5.4 % * 35 % + 7.2 % * 12 % + 35.6 % * 8 % + 50 % * . 5 % = 7.2 % . In this calculation, the first rate represents the probability that a patient delivers at that gestational age, whereas the second rate represents the probability of 'bad neonatal outcome' at that particular gestational age. In case of treatment, 'bad neonatal outcome' is then expected in 3.9% of the children 0.9 % * 77 % + 2.7 % * 35 % + 3.6 % * 12 % + 17.8 % * 8 % + 75 % * . 5 % = 3.9 % . On the mother level this corresponds to an expected ‘bad neonatal outcome’ in at least one of two children of 12.4% in the control group and 6.7% in case of treatment. Using a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80 we need 400 women in the control group and 400 in the intervention group.

* Medical Ethics Committee, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (ref. No. MEC 09/107).

Notes

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis Amsterdam
(2)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Center
(3)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre
(4)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AMPHIA hospital
(5)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam
(6)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Hospital Maastricht
(7)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam
(8)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center St Radboud Nijmegen
(9)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Center Veldhoven
(10)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Isala Hospital
(11)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU Medical Center Amsterdam
(12)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen

References

  1. Hegeman MA, Bekedam DJ, Bloemenkamp KWM, Dimitri AK Papatsonis, van der Post NM, Joris AM, et al: Pessaries in multiple pregnancy as a prevention of preterm birth: the ProTwin Trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009, 9: 44-10.1186/1471-2393-9-44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/12/37/prepub

Copyright

© Liem et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement