Correction: Association of mir-196a-2 rs11614913 and mir-149 rs2292832 polymorphisms with risk of cancer: an updated meta-analysis

A correction refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish after publication. The publication of this article is subject to Frontiers' editorial approval.Instructions:• Please read through all the templates before choosing • Pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• Edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • Please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • Submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used.The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated. * Correspondence: mi.bastami@live.com, andrea.masotti@opbg.net Keywords: same as original articleAdding/removing text In the published article, there was a mistake in the "Results > Publication Bias" section. The term "Begger's funnel plot" was incorrectly used. The correct term is "Begg's funnel plot."A correction has been made to the section Results, Publication Bias, whole paragraph: "Rank correlation test of the mir-196a-2 rs11614913 Begg's funnel plot asymmetry revealed no statistically significant evidence of publication bias in any contrast (Table 3 and Supplementary Figure S10). However, rank correlation test for asymmetry of mir-149 rs2292832 funnel plots showed statistically significant results in the homozygote, recessive and the allelic contrasts (Table 3 and Supplementary Figure S11). Consequently, the "trim and fill" approach (Duval and Tweedie, 2000a,b) employed to correct for funnel plot asymmetry arising from publication bias in these models. The results of overall analysis using original studies or trim and fill method under the three models were comparable (see Supplementary Figure S4 to compare forest plots of the original studies vs. trim-and-fill method and Supplementary Figure S11 for funnel plots). After excluding studies with controls deviating from HWE in sensitivity analysis, rank correlation test was still significant in the mentioned three contrasts." The original version of this article has been updated.