TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “self-reported cannabis use is inconsistent with the results from drug-screening in youth at ultra high-risk for psychosis in Colorado” [Schizophr. Res. 157 (0) (August 2014) 317–318] (S0920996414002849) (10.1016/j.schres.2014.05.032))
AU - Carol, Emily E.
AU - Mittal, Vijay A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funded by: National Institutes of Health, R01MH094650.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - The authors regret that the results from a total of five urine panels were coded incorrectly. Results from the corrected dataset are presented in bold: 1) the urine panel identified 13 (40.6%) participants as being positive for THC (instead of 12, 36.4%); 2) there were 10 cases where the results of the urine panel were inconsistent with self-report (instead of 13); 3) 2 (6.3%) participants did not report drug use but the urine screen detected THC (instead of 3, 9.4%); 4) 8 (25%) participants reported cannabis usage in the past month but the urine screen was negative (instead of 10, 31.3%); 5) 2 (6.2%) participants reported heavy cannabis usage in the past month but the urine screen was negative (instead of 4,12.5%). The primary points made in the letter do not change; however, support from the descriptive data is slightly diminished. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by this mistake. Contributors: Dr. Mittal and Emily Carol conducted analyses, and drafted the manuscript. Dr. Mittal supervised the administration and attained the funding for this study. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to report.
AB - The authors regret that the results from a total of five urine panels were coded incorrectly. Results from the corrected dataset are presented in bold: 1) the urine panel identified 13 (40.6%) participants as being positive for THC (instead of 12, 36.4%); 2) there were 10 cases where the results of the urine panel were inconsistent with self-report (instead of 13); 3) 2 (6.3%) participants did not report drug use but the urine screen detected THC (instead of 3, 9.4%); 4) 8 (25%) participants reported cannabis usage in the past month but the urine screen was negative (instead of 10, 31.3%); 5) 2 (6.2%) participants reported heavy cannabis usage in the past month but the urine screen was negative (instead of 4,12.5%). The primary points made in the letter do not change; however, support from the descriptive data is slightly diminished. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by this mistake. Contributors: Dr. Mittal and Emily Carol conducted analyses, and drafted the manuscript. Dr. Mittal supervised the administration and attained the funding for this study. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to report.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018405859&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018405859&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.schres.2017.04.041
DO - 10.1016/j.schres.2017.04.041
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 28476338
AN - SCOPUS:85018405859
SN - 0920-9964
VL - 192
SP - 494
JO - Schizophrenia Research
JF - Schizophrenia Research
ER -