To the Editor The authors regret to report that Figure 3B was not represented correctly in their Original Investigation, “Effectiveness and Acceptability of Cognitive Behavior Therapy Delivery Formats in Adults With Depression: A Network Meta-analysis,”1 published in the July 2019 issue. In reviewing the article for a presentation, a coauthor detected the errors. In the original Figure 3B, we had shown the dropouts of care as usual over each of the treatment formats, instead of dropouts of the formats over care as usual. But Figure 3B supposed care as usual to be the common comparator, so the correct representation should give the dropouts of the various formats over care as usual. We therefore had to reverse the relative risks. Because of this adjustment, we had to change a number in the text and add a phrase for context, but none of these changes affect the interpretations or conclusions of the study.

中文翻译：

---

图 3 中报告的相对风险错误在成人抑郁症认知行为治疗实施方式的网络荟萃分析中

致编辑作者遗憾地报告，图 3B 在他们的原始调查中没有正确表示，“抑郁症成人认知行为治疗交付形式的有效性和可接受性：网络荟萃分析”1 发表于 2019 年 7 月号。在审查文章以进行演示时，一位合著者发现了这些错误。在原始图 3B 中，我们显示了每种治疗形式的照常退出护理，而不是照常退出护理形式。但是图 3B 假设像往常一样关心是常见的比较器，所以正确的表示应该像往常一样给出各种格式的辍学。因此，我们不得不扭转相对风险。由于这次调整，我们不得不更改文本中的数字并添加一个短语作为上下文，