Open Access Correction

Correction: The role of salt abuse on risk for hypercalciuria

Patrícia Capuzzo Garcia Damasio1*, Carmen Regina Petean Ruiz Amaro2, Natália Baraldi Cunha3, Ana Carla Pichutte3, José Goldberg4, Carlos Roberto Padovani5 and João Luiz Amaro4

Author affiliations

1 Graduate Student, Lithotripsy Service, Botucatu School of Medicine, UNESP, Botucatu, Brazil

2 PhD, Faculty at the Botucatu School of Medicine, UNESP, Lithotripsy Service, Botucatu, Brazil

3 Undergraduate Student, School of Nutrition, UNESP, Botucatu, Brazil

4 PhD, Faculty at the Botucatu School of Medicine, UNESP, Department of Urology, Botucatu, Brazil

5 PhD, Biosciences Institute, Department of Biostatistics, UNESP, Botucatu, Brazil

For all author emails, please log on.

Citation and License

Nutrition Journal 2011, 10:63  doi:10.1186/1475-2891-10-63

Published: 6 June 2011

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

Although the focus of our article in Nutrition Journal [1] reports some novel data and has a different focus compared to our publication in the International Brazilian Journal of Urology [2], we acknowledge that we have duplicated some text and results and that our Nutrition Journal article reports outcome data from the same study population. We have repeated some parts of the methods section from the International Brazilian Journal of Urology as well as the tables showing demographic characteristics and the biochemical characteristics of 24hr urine in the different study groups. Our data on salt intake regarding patients with urinary lithiasis and the related discussion are novel. We apologise for the inappropriate overlap between our two publications and our lack of transparency about the similarities between the two articles. Since publication of this article [1], it has come to our attention that there is an error in the section discussing assumptions about obesity-related costs. Table 2 is correct, indicating that 36% of the population is misidentified when BMI is considered, but there is a typographical error in the text which reported it as 31%.