In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published.During the analysis using the statistical software, a display problem caused the OR value to be incorrectly displayed as 1/OR. The same error occurred for the 95% CI. This was only a display error and did not affect the other tables, figures and final results.The corrected Table 2 appears below.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.