Correction to: The Real-World Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Soothing Cream Containing the Postbiotic Aquaphilus dolomiae Extract-G2 for Skin Healing

Abstract

[See PDF for image] Fig. 2 Effectiveness of the ADE-G2-based cream on objective dermatologic clinical signs and overall product effectiveness. a Changes in mean total severity score (scale from 0 to 12) and percentage differences in this score between baseline and follow-up in the whole study population (all types) and in the three subgroups according to the type of skin impairment. The mean score significantly decreased between baseline and follow-up in all groups. **p < 0.0001 (paired Wilcoxon test). b Overall product effectiveness at follow-up in the whole study population (all types) and in the three subgroups according to the type of skin impairment. Severity scores and relative changes of dermatologic clinical signs and symptoms at baseline, immediately after product use and at follow up, in all subjects and in subject subgroups according to the type of skin impairment All types of skin impairment (all subjects) (N = 1317) Common types of dermatologic conditions or wound healing (N = 568) Skin impairment due to previous surgery or dermatologic procedures (N = 560) Skin impairment due to oncologic treatments (N = 189) BSL IM FU BSL IM FU BSL IM FU BSL IM FU Objective clinical signsa N subjects 1219 1242 518 537 525 548 176 157 Total score (mean, SD) 3.8 (2.5) ND 0.8** (1.3) 4.4 (2.4) ND 0.9** (1.4) 3.7 (2.4) ND 0.7** (1.1) 2.3 (2.2) ND 1.4** (1.4) Percentage of decrease (%)  – 79.0%  – 79.5%  – 81.1%  – 39.1%** Relative changes (N, %) 1176 506 518 152 Improved 982 (83.5) 472 (93.3) 431 (83.2) 79 (52.0)** Not changed 132 (11.2) 27 (5.3) 66 (12.7) 39 (25.7) Worsened 62 (5.3) 7 (1.4) 21 (4.1) 34 (22.4) Score by sign (mean, SD) ND ND ND ND N subjects 1293 – 1297 561 – 564 550 – 557 182 – 176 Erythema 1.7 (0.9) – 0.5** (0.6) 2.0 (0.7) – 0.5** (0.7) 1.7 (0.9) – 0.4** (0.6) 1.2 (0.8) – 0.8** (0.7) N subjects 1240 – 1268 527 – 542 533 – 552 180 – 174 Edema 0.9 (0.9) – 0.1** (0.4) 0.9 (0.9) – 0.1** (0.4) 1.0 (0.9) – 0.1** (0.3) 0.6 (0.8) – 0.4* (0.6) N subjects 1249 – 1258 542 – 547 529 – 550 178 161 Oozing 0.5 (0.8) – 0.1** (0.3) 0.7 (0.9) – 0.1** (0.3) 0.4 (0.8) – 0.0** (0.2) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1* (0.4) N subjects 1247 – 1270 542 – 550 528 – 550 177 – 170 Scabs 0.7 (0.9) – 0.2** (0.4) 0.8 (1.0) – 0.1** (0.4) 0.6 (0.9) – 0.2** (0.4) 0.4 (0.7) – 0.3 (0.5) Subjective clinical symptomsa N subjects 1213 975 1219 507 429 530 532 470 547 174 76 142 Total score (mean, SD) 5.7 (3.8) 2.9** (2.6) 0.9** (1.7) 6.5 (3.7) 3.1** (2.7) 1.0** (1.8) 5.8 (3.7) 2.8** (2.4) 0.5** (1.2) 2.9 (3.5) 2.2** (2.9) 1.9* (2.4) Percentage of decrease (%)  – 49.1%  – 84.2%  – 52.3%  – 84.6%  – 51.7%  – 91.4%  – 24.1%**  – 34.5%** Relative changes (N, %) 962 1157 424 497 465 525 73 135 Improved 849 (88.3) 993 (85.8) 383 (90.3) 451 (90.7) 412 (88.6) 467 (89.0) 54 (74.0) 75 (55.6)** Not changed 105 (10.9) 108 (9.3) 36 (8.5) 36 (7.2) 53 (11.4) 46 (8.8) 16 (21.9) 26 (19.3) Worsened 8 (0.8) 56 (4.8) 5 (1.2) 10 (2.0) 0 (0) 12 (2.3) 3 (4.1) 34 (25.2) Score by symptom (mean, SD) N subjects 1273 1047 1271 545 469 548 546 489 548 182 89 175 Burning sensations 1.4 (1.1) 0.7** (0.8) 0.2** (0.5) 1.5 (1.1) 0.7** (0.8) 0.2** (0.5) 1.6 (1.1) 0.8** (0.7) 0.1** (0.4) 0.6 (0.9) 0.5** (0.8) 0.4* (0.6) N subjects 1241 1021 1257 522 455 538 539 481 548 180 85 171 Tingling 1.0 (1.0) 0.5** (0.7) 0.2** (0.4) 1.1 (1.0) 0.6** (0.7) 0.2** (0.4) 1.1 (1.0) 0.6** (0.7) 0.1** (0.3) 0.5 (0.9) 0.4** (0.8) 0.5 (0.7) N subjects 1257 1032 1247 532 460 543 541 482 551 184 90 153 Tightness 1.5 (1.0) 0.7** (0.7) 0.2** (0.5) 1.7 (1.0) 0.8** (0.8) 0.3** (0.6) 1.5 (1.0) 0.7** (0.7) 0.2** (0.5) 0.9 (1.1) 0.7** (0.8) 0.4** (0.6) N subjects 1252 1019 1256 538 462 545 537 479 550 177 78 161 Pruritus 0.9 (1.0) 0.4** (0.6) 0.2** (0.5) 1.2 (1.1) 0.5** (0.7) 0.2** (0.5) 0.7 (0.9) 0.3 ** (0.6) 0.1** (0.3) 0.5 (0.8) 0.3** (0.6) 0.3 (0.6) N subjects 1253 1020 1265 529 452 540 540 481 548 184 87 177 Pain 1.1 (1.1) 0.6** (0.8) 0.1** (0.4) 1.2 (1.1) 0.6** (0.8) 0.1** (0.4) 1.0 (1.0) 0.5** (0.7) 0.0** (0.2) 0.7 (1.0) 0.7 (0.9) 0.4* (0.6) BSL baseline, FU follow up, IM immediately after product application, N number of subjects, ND not determined, SD standard deviation aThe scale used for assessing the severity of each sign or symptom ranged from 0 (none) to 3 (severe), therefore, the highest possible total scores were 12 for objective signs and 15 for subjective symptoms *p value < 0.05, **p value < 0.0001 (paired Wilcoxon test for intra-group comparisons of scores, Kruskall-Wallis test for inter-group comparisons of percentage of decrease, and Chi2 test for inter-group comparisons of improvement rates) Throughout the text, the trade name of the product to be corrected to “Cicalfate+” or “C+-Restore” by removing spaces between the letters and the sign “+”.

Correction to: Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2024) 14:697–712https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01119-x

1. In this article the affiliation details for Author Frasson Nicolas were incorrectly given as ‘Clinique Du Dr Ster, 9 Avenue Dr Jean Ster, 34240 Nîmes, France’ but should have been ‘2 Avenue du Docteur Jean Ster, 34240 Lamalou Les Bains, France’.

2. In this article the wrong figure appeared as Fig. 2; the figure should have appeared as shown below (Fig. 2).

   [See PDF for image]

   Fig. 2

   Effectiveness of the ADE-G2-based cream on objective dermatologic clinical signs and overall product effectiveness. a Changes in mean total severity score (scale from 0 to 12) and percentage differences in this score between baseline and follow-up in the whole study population (all types) and in the three subgroups according to the type of skin impairment. The mean score significantly decreased between baseline and follow-up in all groups. **p < 0.0001 (paired Wilcoxon test). b Overall product effectiveness at follow-up in the whole study population (all types) and in the three subgroups according to the type of skin impairment. The cumulated percentage of subjects who rated the study product as “very effective” or “effective” is indicated for each group

3. In Table 2 of this article, full header line with the 4 main subgroups to be repeated in the continued part of the table (not just the subheadings) (Table 2).

   Table 2. Severity scores and relative changes of dermatologic clinical signs and symptoms at baseline, immediately after product use and at follow up, in all subjects and in subject subgroups according to the type of skin impairment

   	All types of skin impairment (all subjects) (N = 1317)			Common types of dermatologic conditions or wound healing (N = 568)			Skin impairment due to previous surgery or dermatologic procedures (N = 560)			Skin impairment due to oncologic treatments (N = 189)
   	BSL	IM	FU	BSL	IM	FU	BSL	IM	FU	BSL	IM	FU
   Objective clinical signsa
   N subjects	1219		1242	518		537	525		548	176		157
   Total score (mean, SD)	3.8 (2.5)	ND	0.8** (1.3)	4.4 (2.4)	ND	0.9** (1.4)	3.7 (2.4)	ND	0.7** (1.1)	2.3 (2.2)	ND	1.4** (1.4)
   Percentage of decrease (%)			– 79.0%			– 79.5%			– 81.1%			– 39.1%**
   Relative changes (N, %)			1176			506			518			152
   Improved			982 (83.5)			472 (93.3)			431 (83.2)			79 (52.0)**
   Not changed			132 (11.2)			27 (5.3)			66 (12.7)			39 (25.7)
   Worsened			62 (5.3)			7 (1.4)			21 (4.1)			34 (22.4)
   Score by sign (mean, SD)		ND			ND			ND			ND
   N subjects	1293	–	1297	561	–	564	550	–	557	182	–	176
   Erythema	1.7 (0.9)	–	0.5** (0.6)	2.0 (0.7)	–	0.5** (0.7)	1.7 (0.9)	–	0.4** (0.6)	1.2 (0.8)	–	0.8** (0.7)
   N subjects	1240	–	1268	527	–	542	533	–	552	180	–	174
   Edema	0.9 (0.9)	–	0.1** (0.4)	0.9 (0.9)	–	0.1** (0.4)	1.0 (0.9)	–	0.1** (0.3)	0.6 (0.8)	–	0.4* (0.6)
   N subjects	1249	–	1258	542	–	547	529	–	550	178		161
   Oozing	0.5 (0.8)	–	0.1** (0.3)	0.7 (0.9)	–	0.1** (0.3)	0.4 (0.8)	–	0.0** (0.2)	0.2 (0.6)		0.1* (0.4)
   N subjects	1247	–	1270	542	–	550	528	–	550	177	–	170
   Scabs	0.7 (0.9)	–	0.2** (0.4)	0.8 (1.0)	–	0.1** (0.4)	0.6 (0.9)	–	0.2** (0.4)	0.4 (0.7)	–	0.3 (0.5)
   Subjective clinical symptomsa
   N subjects	1213	975	1219	507	429	530	532	470	547	174	76	142
   Total score (mean, SD)	5.7 (3.8)	2.9** (2.6)	0.9** (1.7)	6.5 (3.7)	3.1** (2.7)	1.0** (1.8)	5.8 (3.7)	2.8** (2.4)	0.5** (1.2)	2.9 (3.5)	2.2** (2.9)	1.9* (2.4)
   Percentage of decrease (%)		– 49.1%	– 84.2%		– 52.3%	– 84.6%		– 51.7%	– 91.4%		– 24.1%**	– 34.5%**
   Relative changes (N, %)		962	1157		424	497		465	525		73	135
   Improved		849 (88.3)	993 (85.8)		383 (90.3)	451 (90.7)		412 (88.6)	467 (89.0)		54 (74.0)	75 (55.6)**
   Not changed		105 (10.9)	108 (9.3)		36 (8.5)	36 (7.2)		53 (11.4)	46 (8.8)		16 (21.9)	26 (19.3)
   Worsened		8 (0.8)	56 (4.8)		5 (1.2)	10 (2.0)		0 (0)	12 (2.3)		3 (4.1)	34 (25.2)
   Score by symptom (mean, SD)
   N subjects	1273	1047	1271	545	469	548	546	489	548	182	89	175
   Burning sensations	1.4 (1.1)	0.7** (0.8)	0.2** (0.5)	1.5 (1.1)	0.7** (0.8)	0.2** (0.5)	1.6 (1.1)	0.8** (0.7)	0.1** (0.4)	0.6 (0.9)	0.5** (0.8)	0.4* (0.6)
   N subjects	1241	1021	1257	522	455	538	539	481	548	180	85	171
   Tingling	1.0 (1.0)	0.5** (0.7)	0.2** (0.4)	1.1 (1.0)	0.6** (0.7)	0.2** (0.4)	1.1 (1.0)	0.6** (0.7)	0.1** (0.3)	0.5 (0.9)	0.4** (0.8)	0.5 (0.7)
   N subjects	1257	1032	1247	532	460	543	541	482	551	184	90	153
   Tightness	1.5 (1.0)	0.7** (0.7)	0.2** (0.5)	1.7 (1.0)	0.8** (0.8)	0.3** (0.6)	1.5 (1.0)	0.7** (0.7)	0.2** (0.5)	0.9 (1.1)	0.7** (0.8)	0.4** (0.6)
   N subjects	1252	1019	1256	538	462	545	537	479	550	177	78	161
   Pruritus	0.9 (1.0)	0.4** (0.6)	0.2** (0.5)	1.2 (1.1)	0.5** (0.7)	0.2** (0.5)	0.7 (0.9)	0.3 ** (0.6)	0.1** (0.3)	0.5 (0.8)	0.3** (0.6)	0.3 (0.6)
   N subjects	1253	1020	1265	529	452	540	540	481	548	184	87	177
   Pain	1.1 (1.1)	0.6** (0.8)	0.1** (0.4)	1.2 (1.1)	0.6** (0.8)	0.1** (0.4)	1.0 (1.0)	0.5** (0.7)	0.0** (0.2)	0.7 (1.0)	0.7 (0.9)	0.4* (0.6)

   BSL baseline, FU follow up, IM immediately after product application, N number of subjects, ND not determined, SD standard deviation

   ^aThe scale used for assessing the severity of each sign or symptom ranged from 0 (none) to 3 (severe), therefore, the highest possible total scores were 12 for objective signs and 15 for subjective symptoms

   ^*p value < 0.05, **p value < 0.0001 (paired Wilcoxon test for intra-group comparisons of scores, Kruskall-Wallis test for inter-group comparisons of percentage of decrease, and Chi² test for inter-group comparisons of improvement rates)

4. Throughout the text, the trade name of the product to be corrected to “Cicalfate+” or “C⁺-Restore” by removing spaces between the letters and the sign “+”.