Revisando el articulo he encontrado algo muy gracioso (este medio es muy de poner cosas sin leerlas, por lo visto....)
Este es el parrafo:
" Por lo tanto
, la tasa de incidencia de aborto espontáneo fue del 82 % ,
no del 12,6 % como se presenta en los hallazgos del estudio, y los autores del estudio han admitido desde entonces que cometieron un error,
emitiendo una corrección con seis meses de retraso porque
el estudio ha sido utilizado para justificar la vacunación de Covid-19 de mujeres embarazadas y madres primerizas en todo el mundo. "
Bien si le dais al enlace la correcio y la admision del error os lleba aqui:
Pues bien, copio:
Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons (
Original Article, N Engl J Med 2021;384:2273-2282). In the Results section of the Abstract (page 2273), the third sentence should have read, “Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester),” rather than “…of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).” In the first paragraph of the Discussion section (page 2277), the parenthetical in the third sentence should have begun, “(i.e., preterm birth, small size, …,” rather than “(e.g., fetal loss, preterm birth, small size, ….” In Table 4 (page 2280), the double dagger symbol in the Spontaneous abortion row should have followed “Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk15-17.” The “Published Incidence” cell in the same row should have read “Not applicable,” rather than “10–26,” and the “V-safe Pregnancy Registry” cell should have read “104,” rather than “104/827 (12.6)‡.” In the table footnotes, the following content should have been appended to the double dagger footnote: “No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” The article is correct at NEJM.org.
Es una correcion de tipo gramatical y de puntuacion:
un parentesis mal puesto: "In the first paragraph of the Discussion section (page 2277), the parenthetical in the third sentence should have begun, “(i.e., preterm birth, small size, …,” rather than “(e.g., fetal loss, preterm birth, small size, ….” "
Una casilla de una tabla:In Table 4 (page 2280), the double dagger symbol in the Spontaneous abortion row should have followed “Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk15-17.” The “Published Incidence” cell in the same row should have read “Not applicable,” rather than “10–26,” and the “V-safe Pregnancy Registry” cell should have read “104,” rather than “104/827 (12.6)‡.”
En ningun lado de ese texto que citan como correccion del error, sale nada de lo que dicen de:
"Por lo tanto
, la tasa de incidencia de aborto espontáneo fue del 82 % ,
no del 12,6 % como se presenta en los hallazgos del estudio, y los autores del estudio han admitido desde entonces que cometieron un error"
Ademas (algo que pasa mucho en este articulo) la cifra que da el estudio es de 13.9% de abortos no el 12,6......."of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth " y como digo ponen muchos datos mal, cn cifras diferentes a las graficas que ponen...
Vamos que na de na......ni orden ni correccion ni 82% de abortos...
