On 2017 Jan 11, Vinay Pasupuleti commented:

The abstract was erroneously deleted by journal editors and was published as an erratum at a later date. The full text clearly mentions that 6 articles were included (one article had results from a retrospective cohort study as well as a prospective cohort study)....therefore, a total of 7 observational studies. Total N in Table 1 is 102,767 as mentioned in the abstract (351+58+625+27+1848+246+170+160+96806+322+1077+1077 = 102,767).

On 2016 Jul 04, Swapnil Hiremath commented:

Looks like the abstract was erroneously deleted, see the erratum.

On the other hand, the point about number of studies is valid (6 in full text, 7 in abstract) - also the total N in full text (from table 1) adds up to > 200,000, compared to 102, 767 above in abstract. Does need to be clarified and addressed by the authors, in my opinion.

On 2016 Jun 30, Gabriel Rada commented:

This abstract contains several mistakes, most of them minor formatting issues. However, it states there are 7 included studies, when the actual number reported in the full text is 6. On the other hand, there is no abstract in the journal website, so it seems it was created for indexing purposes. I don't see any indication of this abstract being 'in process' in Pubmed/MEDLINE. My main issue is who is responsible of the information displayed here? The publisher or Pubmed?

On 2016 Jun 30, Gabriel Rada commented:

This abstract contains several mistakes, most of them minor formatting issues. However, it states there are 7 included studies, when the actual number reported in the full text is 6. On the other hand, there is no abstract in the journal website, so it seems it was created for indexing purposes. I don't see any indication of this abstract being 'in process' in Pubmed/MEDLINE. My main issue is who is responsible of the information displayed here? The publisher or Pubmed?