This article corrects:

  1. Allospecific CD154 + T-cytotoxic memory cells as potential surrogate for rejection risk in pediatric intestine transplantation Volume 16, Issue 1, 83–91, Article first published online: 29 November 2011

Allospecific CD154+T-cytotoxic memory cells as potential surrogate for rejection-risk in pediatric intestine transplantation

Pediatr Transplant 2012: 16: 83–91

DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2011.01617.x

The authors acknowledge following errors in the above-mentioned article published in the February 2012 issue of Pediatric Transplantation.

The body of the manuscript incorrectly describes sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values on the basis of 11 non-rejectors and 18 rejectors. The correct numbers are 12 non-rejectors and 18 rejectors, as is described in Table S2.

Additionally, 16 rejectors are described as having IR above the rejection-risk threshold in the body of the manuscript instead of 17, as is correctly described in Table S2.

To reconcile the data in Table S2 which is correct, the following statements in the Abstract and sections P3, P4 and A2 are corrected:

  1. Abstract: CD154 + TcM correlate significantly with rejection severity (Spearman r = 0.685, p = 2.03E−5) and associate with biopsy-proven ITx rejection with sensitivity/specificity of 94%/84% independent of immunosuppressant. Previously stated sensitivity of 90% is incorrect.
  2. P3: We find that IR1 > 1.23 was present in 17 of 18 rejectors and absent in 10 of 12 non-rejectors (sensitivity/specificity 94.4%/83.3%). The positive and negative predictive values for IR1 > 1.23 were 89.5% and 91%, respectively, for all children and remained high for individual treatment groups (Table S2). Previous statement in which sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value was calculated based on IR ≥ 1.23 in 16 of 18 rejectors and IR < 1.23 in 10 of 12 non-rejectors is incorrect.
  3. P4: Among rejectors, IR1 ≥ 1.23 was present in all alemtuzumab-treated rejectors and 10 of 11 rATG-treated rejectors (sensitivity 100% vs. 91%, p = NS). Previous statement regarding 9 of 11 rATG-treated rejectors is incorrect.
  4. A2: An IR0 ≥ 1.23 predicted 60-day ACR with a sensitivity/specificity of 93.3%/83.3%. Previously stated sensitivity/specificity of 87.5%/91% is incorrect.

These corrections do not alter the conclusions of the author's study.