It recently came to my attention that the abstract of this manuscript has a typographical error. The first sentence in the Discussion section says "Our estimates indicate that an individual with seven or more dental amalgam surfaces has 30% to 50% higher urinary mercury levels than an individual without amalgams."
In order to match the numbers reported in the document (which are correct), this sentence should read: "Our estimates indicate that an individual with seven or more dental amalgam surfaces has 30% to 65% higher urinary mercury levels than an individual without amalgams."
As corresponding author, I feel I have to apologize for any confusion this caused. I thank readers who pointed this out to me.
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
Typographical error in abstract
3 December 2013
It recently came to my attention that the abstract of this manuscript has a typographical error. The first sentence in the Discussion section says "Our estimates indicate that an individual with seven or more dental amalgam surfaces has 30% to 50% higher urinary mercury levels than an individual without amalgams."
In order to match the numbers reported in the document (which are correct), this sentence should read: "Our estimates indicate that an individual with seven or more dental amalgam surfaces has 30% to 65% higher urinary mercury levels than an individual without amalgams."
As corresponding author, I feel I have to apologize for any confusion this caused. I thank readers who pointed this out to me.
Daniel J. Dutton
Competing interests
None declared