The authors of the article “Diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT and MRI for foot and ankle osteoarthritis (ProSPECT-trial): Study protocol– FAS 2098- Foot and Ankle Surgery 32 (2026) 191–192 were invited to respond to the above Letter to the Editor commenting on their work, and they did submit a response. However, this response was rejected by the Editor.
During the production process, a footnote was mistakenly included stating that the authors had failed to respond to the error. This statement was incorrect.
The publisher apologizes for this error and any inconvenience caused.
Related posts:
Foot and Ankle Surgery´s 2025 journal impact factor (IF) is the highest of all foot and ankle journals
Is arthroscopically-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) superior to percutaneous fixation in talar neck fractures? A proportional meta-analysis
Morphological classification and clinical significance of retromalleolar canal based on magnetic resonance imaging
Effects and optimal dosage of Tai Chi for chronic ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Outcomes of open versus minimally invasive Zadek osteotomy in treatment of insertional Achilles tendinopathy
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) into Spanish for Chile and LATAM
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
