Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Text correction updates the accuracy of CHARIOT's predictive ability for intra-anesthetic complications, indicating low effectiveness.
Corrigendum on: Brumund L, Wittenberg-Voges L, Rohn K and Kästner SBR (2024) Risk assessment in equine anesthesia: a first evaluation of the usability, utility and predictivity of the two-part CHARIOT. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1384525. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1384525 Text Correction In the published article, there was an error. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the CHARIOT for intra-anesthetic complications was reported incorrectly. A correction has been made to Results, intra-anesthetic complications, 3.2. This sentence previously stated: "The discriminant ability of the ASA-PS-Equine (AUC=0.6093; 95% CI 0.5506–0.6681), the 10-RS (AUC=0.6701; 95% CI 0.6080–0.7323), and CHARIOT (AUC=0.6697; 95% CI 0.0315– 0.6079) related to the occurrence of intra-anesthetic complications was found to be low." The corrected sentence appears below: "The discriminant ability of the ASA-PS-Equine (AUC=0.6093; 95% CI 0.5506–0.6681), the 10-RS (AUC=0.6701; 95% CI 0.6080–0.7323), and CHARIOT (AUC=0.6697; 95% CI 0.6079– 0.7315) related to the occurrence of intra-anesthetic complications was found to be low." The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brumund et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: