Erratum to: Clin Rheumatol

DOI 10.1007/s10067-017-3768-5

The original version of this article, unfortunately, contained an error.

The above article originally published with an error present in the 9-valent dose listed within the abstract. Originally reading “…For the 9-valent dose, our calculated number needed to seriously harm is 140 (95% CI, 796–53)…”, this should instead have read “…For the 9-valent dose, our calculated number needed to seriously harm is 140 (95% CI, 79–653)…” [bold text used to highlight problem area].

The original article was corrected.