In the sentence beginning ‘The panelists strongly agreed that HT may be indicated…’ in this article, the value ‘91%’ should have read ‘93%’. The correct sentence should have read:

The panelists strongly agreed that HT may be indicated in non-specific low back pain (95%) and chronic nociceptive pain (93%), whereas it is not indicated in acute inflammatory joint pain (95%).

In Table 2 of this article, the data in the section headed ‘Time and modalities of heat treatment,’ the values were mistakenly listed under each row. The correct Table 2 should have read:

The original article has been corrected.