On 2016 Aug 11, David C. Norris commented:

This Notice addresses "incorrect confidence intervals and a P value in 2 tables", errors that "were discovered in the course of rechecking the [statistical analysis] code in conjunction with a secondary analysis." My understanding (based on a 1/6/2016 personal communication from a member of the Kessler team) is that said "secondary analysis" would in fact be a reanalysis by myself and Andrew Wilson, which at the time of this Notice was published on F1000Research, and has since completed post-publication peer review and PubMed indexing.¹

Although the Kessler team's discovery of these programming errors does illustrate one benefit of the increased scrutiny a reanalysis engenders generally, it should be understood that this Retraction and Replacement is merely incidental to our reanalysis. In particular, this Retraction and Replacement does not address the original work's² nontransparent application of a dubious PTSD outcome imputation procedure which our reanalysis exposed. It is hoped that some comment on this substantive question will be forthcoming from the original authors, either here on PubMed Commons or through any of several mechanisms^3,4 provided by the F1000Research platform.

1] Norris DC, 2016

2] Kessler RC, 2014

3] F1000Research Policy for Comments on Articles

4] F1000Research - Preparing a Correspondence Article

On 2016 Aug 11, David C. Norris commented:

This Notice addresses "incorrect confidence intervals and a P value in 2 tables", errors that "were discovered in the course of rechecking the [statistical analysis] code in conjunction with a secondary analysis." My understanding (based on a 1/6/2016 personal communication from a member of the Kessler team) is that said "secondary analysis" would in fact be a reanalysis by myself and Andrew Wilson, which at the time of this Notice was published on F1000Research, and has since completed post-publication peer review and PubMed indexing.¹

Although the Kessler team's discovery of these programming errors does illustrate one benefit of the increased scrutiny a reanalysis engenders generally, it should be understood that this Retraction and Replacement is merely incidental to our reanalysis. In particular, this Retraction and Replacement does not address the original work's² nontransparent application of a dubious PTSD outcome imputation procedure which our reanalysis exposed. It is hoped that some comment on this substantive question will be forthcoming from the original authors, either here on PubMed Commons or through any of several mechanisms^3,4 provided by the F1000Research platform.

1] Norris DC, 2016

2] Kessler RC, 2014

3] F1000Research Policy for Comments on Articles

4] F1000Research - Preparing a Correspondence Article