Correction to: “Liuzijue” Qigong training enhances early pulmonary function recovery after esophageal cancer surgery

Abstract

Correction to: Bai Y, Zhang ZL, Qiao L, Shi LL, Wang J, Nian H, Du QC, Tian ZH, Yao ZL, Wu YB. "Liuzijue" Qigong training enhances early pulmonary function recovery after esophageal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(12): 113408 [PMID: 41479713 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i12.113408]. In this article, we have identified an error in Tables 3 and 4: The columns labeled “Control group” and “Experimental group” were inadvertently transposed during a post-publication review.

Key Words: Correction

Core Tip: This is a correction to a previously published article. The labels for the Control and Experimental groups in Tables 3 and 4 were mistakenly swapped. Both the tables and the corresponding descriptive text in the Results section have been revised accordingly. This error does not alter the statistical results or the overall conclusion that Liuzijue Qigong facilitates early pulmonary function recovery after esophageal cancer surgery.

TO THE EDITOR

In our previous article[1], we identified an error in Tables 3 and 4: The columns labeled “Control group” and “Experimental group” were inadvertently transposed during a post-publication review (presented as Tables 1 and 2 in this article). Of note, although this error does not compromise the statistical significance or the overall conclusion of the study, it also affected the corresponding descriptive text in the Results section. The corrected versions of the tables and the revised text for the Results section are provided below.

Table 1 Comparative analysis of postoperative pulmonary function and exercise capacity assessments across study groups of esophageal cancer patients, mean ± SD.

Variable	Overall (n = 306)	Control group (n = 163)	Experimental group (n = 143)	P value
Forced vital capacity	3094.4 ± 841.4	3013.3 ± 813.6	3265.4 ± 861.3	0.115
FEV1	2734.4 ± 727.9	2066.1 ± 740.5	2270.8 ± 797.2	0.021
FEV1 to forced vital capacity ratio	85.6 ± 10.1	86.0 ± 9.3	85.1 ± 10.7	0.418
Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide	17.1 ± 5.9	17.0 ± 5.9	17.1 ± 5.9	0.880
Maximum voluntary ventilation	100.4 ± 35.6	101.9 ± 35.7	99.1 ± 35.5	0.507
Total lung capacity	5624.4 ± 1106.5	5626.8 ± 1106.1	5622.3 ± 1110.3	0.972
Functional residual capacity	2976.4 ± 592.8	2960.7 ± 578.2	2990.1 ± 606.8	0.664
6-minute walk distance	404.2 ± 14.6	403.4 ± 15.0	404.9 ± 14.2	0.379
Modified Borg scale	2 (0-4)	2 (0-4)	2 (1-3)	0.045

Table 2 Comparison of changes in pulmonary function and functional indicators in esophageal cancer patients during the perioperative period between groups, mean ± SD.

Variable	Overall (n = 306)	Control group (n = 163)	Experimental group (n = 143)	P value
∆Forced vital capacity	408.5 ± 93.0	502.1 ± 35.0	326.5 ± 26.7	< 0.001a
∆FEV1	559.3 ± 152.5	701.7 ± 47.1	434.4 ± 90.8	< 0.001a
∆FEV1 to forced vital capacity ratio	4.4 ± 19.9	3.5 ± 19.3	5.3 ± 20.4	0.435
∆Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide	2.7 ± 1.8	2.8 ± 1.8	2.6 ± 1.8	0.305
∆Maximum voluntary ventilation	16.8 ± 11.1	19.4 ± 11.7	14.4 ± 10.1	< 0.001a
∆Total lung capacity	340.0 ± 699.8	378.2 ± 726.7	306.4 ± 675.8	0.371
∆Functional residual capacity	-739.6 ± 733.4	-717.3 ± 731.9	-759.2 ± 736.4	0.619
∆6-minute walk distance	45.0 ± 12.6	45.0 ± 12.5	44.9 ± 12.7	0.896
∆Modified Borg scale	-1.0 (-2 to 1)	-1.0 (-2 to 1)	-1.0 (-2 to 1)	0.815

^aP < 0.05.

Corrected text for the last paragraph of the Results section

The last paragraph of the Results section has been revised as follows. For ΔFVC, the original sentence reported a significant increase in the experimental group (+502.1 ± 35.0 mL) than in the control group (+326.5 ± 26.7 mL) (P < 0.001), which has been corrected to experimental (+326.5 ± 26.7 mL) vs control (+502.1 ± 35.0 mL). For ΔFEV1, the original values of +701.7 ± 47.1 mL for the experimental group and +434.4 ± 90.3 mL for the control group have been corrected to +434.4 ± 90.3 mL and +701.7 ± 47.1 mL, respectively (P < 0.001). For ΔMVV, the original experimental and control values of +19.4 ± 11.7 L/minute and +14.4 ± 10.1 L/minute, respectively, have been corrected to +14.4 ± 10.1 L/minute and +19.4 ± 11.7 L/minute (P < 0.001).

We sincerely apologize for any confusion that this error may have caused. The results and conclusions of the study remain unchanged.