In the following Letter to the Editor1 two sentences were included in error. Neither should have appeared in the published version. The sentences that should have been removed are:
‘Additional potential explanations for the higher rate of LAM defects and the unexpected LAM abnormalities after emergency cesarean section have been discussed in the original article.’
‘Median and interquartile range for continuous data that did not fit a normal distribution were provided in tables 1 and 2, and S1 and S2, in our original paper.7’
We apologise for these errors.